清償抵充探微－－法釋〔2009〕5號第20條和第21條評析

The Detailed Inquires into Imputation of Payment A Commentary on the Article 20 and Article 21 in No. 5〔2009〕of the Supreme People's Court

大陸法系民法中的清償抵充制度淵源於羅馬法，但在債務人指定抵充、債權人指 定抵充和法定抵充的法律構造方面，各國民法典的規定存在差異。我國法釋〔2009〕5號第20條沒有規定債務人的指定抵充，屬於一項法政策上的失誤，應通過法律續造加以克服。關於抵銷的抵充、“均到期”債務的抵充、“擔保數額最少”債務的抵充以及訴訟時效期間已屆滿的債務的抵充等問題，該條規定並不明確，應採用法解釋論方法予以闡明。圍繞超限利息、逾期利息、違約金等項目的抵充，以及數項主債務均有費用和利息時的抵充，我國的審判實務存在爭議，應根據法釋〔2009〕5號第21條規定的文義並區分不同債務的性質加以明確。

The imputation of payment in the civil law system derives from Roman law, but there are some discrepancies on the institutional structure in modern civil codes. Though the article 20 in No. 5 〔2009〕of the Supreme People's Court stipulates the imputation of contractual obligation, the agreement of imputation, the right to impute and the rank of statutory imputation still need more specific explanations. In trial practice the article 21 in No. 5〔2009〕of the Supreme People's Court has been treated differently around the imputation of overdue interest, overrun interest and liquidated damages, as well as the way of imputation when costs and interests of several main debts coexist, which could be solved through the interpretation of such articles based on its nature of different obligation.