摘要
《民法典》第641条至第643条完善了所有权保留制度,对出卖人在破产程序中的取回权所产生的影响,值得研究。出卖人的破产取回权以《企业破产法》第38条为依据,而出卖人取回权以《民法典》第642条为依据,二者性质有所不同,前者为出卖人在破产程序中的异议权,后者则为前者的请求权基础。出卖人取回权为实体法上的请求权,其构成要件已由《民法典》第642条规定。作为破产取回权的请求权基础者,并不限于《民法典》第642条,甚至还可以包括《民法典》第235条。《民法典》对出卖人取回权的回复占有的物权效力附加限制的,其限制同样适用于出卖人的破产取回权。以担保功能主义解释《民法典》第641条,对出卖人的破产取回权不应产生实质性的影响。
Articles 641 to 643 of the Civil Code have perfected the system of retention of title and the impact on the seller’s right to recover in insolvency proceedings, which is worth studying. The seller’s right to recover in insolvency is based on Article 38 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, while the seller’s right of recovery, different in nature, is based on Article 642 of the Civil Code, which is different in nature, the former is the seller’s right of objection in insolvency proceedings, and the latter is the claim basis of the former. The seller’s right of recovery is a substantive right of claim, the constituent elements of which have been stipulated in Article 642 of the Civil Code. As for the claim basis for the seller’s right to recover in insolvency, it is not limited to Article 642 of the Civil Code, but may even include Article 235 of the Civil Code. Where the Civil Code imposes additional restrictions on the effectiveness of the seller’s right of recovery, the restriction shall also apply to the seller’s right to recover in insolvency. The interpretation of Article 641 of the Civil Code by functionalism for security interest should not have a substantial impact on the seller’s right to recover in insolvency.
出处
《上海政法学院学报（法治论丛）》
2021年第4期1-15,共15页
Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science & Law(The Rule of Law Forum)
关键词
所有权保留
出卖人
破产程序
出卖人取回权
破产取回权
Retention of Title
Seller
Insolvency Proceedings
Seller’s Right of Recovery
Right to Recover in Insolvency
