摘要
法释〔2015〕18号第24条的规定存在模糊之处,须从解释论的角度予以梳理。第24条中买卖合同的缔结具有创设担保功能的目的。让与担保和后让与担保等非典型担保物权仅是学理上的概念,不应在以买卖合同担保民间借贷合同的审判实践中予以认定。通过债的制度安排可以实现担保功能。当买卖合同因标的物的价格波动而具有担保功能时,其既不存在虚伪意思表示,也不因属于脱法行为而无效。在买卖合同可以有效存在的情况下,必须以民间借贷法律关系进行审理是便于审判的技术性处理。如果借款人同时不履行民间借贷合同和买卖合同,则出借人因借款人双重违约而享有履行选择权。
The provision of article 24 of [2015] No. 18 judicial interpretation is fuzzy, so we need to analyze it by interpretation theory. In article 24, parties conclude a sales contract which has the function of creating guarantee purpose. At present, transferring guarantee and after transferring guarantee and so on which are atypical real rights of guarantee are all theoretic concepts should not be determined in the trial practice of the legal relationship of sale contract guaranteeing private lending contract. We are able to use obligation systems to create the effect of guarantee. When the sale contract has the function of guarantee due to its price fluctuation, it is not a false declaration of intention and can＇t be invalid on account of evading action. The dispute must be heard according to private lending contract is only a technical settlement that is in order to make the trial procedure simple when the sale contract could exist as valid. If the borrower fails to perform the private lending contract and the sale contract, the lender will own the performance option for the borrower＇s double defaults.
出处
《法学评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第2期176-188,共13页
Law Review
关键词
买卖合同
民间借贷合同
担保功能
非典型担保物权
履行选择权
Sale Contract
Private Lending Contract
Guarantee Function
Atypical Real Right of Guarantee
Performance Option
