期刊文献+

恶意串通与债权人撤销权的选择适用——以“指导案例33号”为分析对象

Selective Application of Bad Faith Collusion and Creditor’s Right of Avoidance—Analyzing “Guiding Case No. 33” as the Object of Analysis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 《民法典》第一百五十四条是恶意串通规则,但是没有具体明确其构成要件和适用范围,出现很多表面上似乎满足恶意串通的要件,实际上应由其他制度分别处理的情形。为了理解和准确适用恶意串通规则,最高人民法院发布指导案例33号。指导案例33号详细阐述恶意串通的主观要件,但是对客观要件的认定没有充分的论述。除明晰构成要件的积极意义外,还引发我们思考一个问题;债权人撤销权和恶意串通存在何种关联。本文将指导案例33号作为切入点,结合最高院裁判理由,明确恶意串通构成要件。进而,区别恶意串通制度与债权人撤销权制度。最后,在恶意串通与债权人撤销权竞合时,适用恶意串通抑或债权人撤销权取决于保护对象类型,当保护对象为一般金钱债权时,能够适用恶意串通规则的情形也就全部可以适用债权人撤销权制度。而债权人撤销权是更具体的制度,要件更加清晰。 Article 154 of the Civil Code is a rule of malicious collusion, but it does not specifically define its constituent elements and scope of application, resulting in many situations that on the surface appear to satisfy the elements of malicious collusion, but which should in fact be dealt with separately by other regimes. In order to understand and accurately apply the malicious collusion rule, the supreme people’s court issued guidance case No. 33. The Guiding Case No. 33 elaborates on the subjective elements of malicious collusion, but does not adequately address the determination of the objective elements. In addition to the positive significance of clarifying the elements, it also triggers us to think about what kind of connection exists between the creditor’s right of avoidance and malicious collusion. In this paper, we take Guiding Case No. 33 as an entry point, and combine it with the Supreme Court’s reasoning to clarify the elements of malicious collusion. Then, it distinguishes between the malicious collusion system and the creditor’s right of avoidance system. Finally, in the case of malicious collusion and creditor’s right of avoidance, the application of malicious collusion or creditor’s right of avoidance depends on the type of the object of protection, and when the object of protection is a general pecuniary claim, the circumstances that can be applied to the rule of malicious collusion can all be applied to the creditor’s right of avoidance system. The creditor’s right of avoidance is a more specific system with clearer elements.
作者 毛懿
出处 《争议解决》 2024年第4期109-115,共7页 Dispute Settlement
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献29

共引文献67

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部