摘要
关于债权人撤销权的制度定位,长期存在“平等主义”和“优先主义”的争论。我国通说虽然奉行平等主义,但在若干解释论问题上偏离了预定的叙事轨道,事实上向优先主义倾斜。在不存在类似日本民法典第425条的我国法上,平等主义绝非必然。对于本质在于“撤销”的我国债权人撤销权而言,实现优先主义的关键在于确保撤销利益的相对性,我们可以凭借责任说重构债权人撤销权的法律构造实现上述解释目标。债权人撤销权的制度定位不应当由强制执行法上的评价标准来决定,而是一个必须由实体法积极地予以正面回答的问题。我国强制执行法上的混合主义,并不妨碍债权人撤销权的优先主义转向。
There is a long-standing debate between“egalitarianism”and“preferentialism”regarding the institutional position of creditors right to revocation.Although the prevailing doctrine pursues egalitarianism,it deviates from its predetermined doctrine on several issues,and in fact tilts towards preferentialism.In our law,which does not have the same rule as Article 425 of the Japanese Civil Code,egalitarianism is by no means a necessity.For our creditor's right to revocation,the essence of which is“revocation”,the key to achieving preferentialism is to ensure that the benefits of revocation are enjoyed only by the revocation creditors.We can achieve this interpretive goal by reconstructing the legal structure of the creditor's right to revocation by virtue of the liability doctrine.The institutional position of the creditor's right to revocation should not be determined by the evaluation criteria in enforcement law,instead it is a question that must be positively answered by substantive law.The mixed machanism in our enforcement law does not preclude creditor's right to revocation from tilting towards preferentialism.
出处
《南大法学》
2024年第1期94-115,共22页
NanJing University Law Journal
基金
国家留学基金委“国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目”(项目编号:202206210227)资助。
关键词
债权人撤销权
优先主义
平等主义
强制执行
责任说
Creditor's Right to Revocation
Preferentialism
Egalitarianism
Enforcement
Liability Doctrine
