航空器融資租賃的法律問題探析

On the Legal Problems of Aircraft Financial Leasing

隨著航空業的迅猛發展和產業規模的不斷擴大，融資租賃交易作為國際主流的航空器融資模式，在我國取得了蓬勃發展。但是由於缺乏完善的法律制度，航空器融資租賃在發展中出現了許多問題，成為我國飛機融資租賃事業繼 續發展的制約因素。原因在於我國當前對於融資租賃的理解與研究囿於“租賃”二字，往往將其視為一種特殊的租賃合同，而忽視了其實質上的擔保交易性。應當從以下五個方面重新認識航空器融資租賃法律關係：1、航空器融資租賃法律關係並非出租人和承租人之間的雙方法律關係，而是出租人、承租人（航空公司）、租賃物生產商之間的三方法律關係：航空器買賣合同的初始購買人是航空公司（承租人），出租人的購買人地位是由航空公司（承租人）轉讓而來，航空公司（承租人）對於生產商有獨立的瑕疵擔保請求權。2、融資租賃合同不是繼續性合同，不適用任意解除等制度。3、融資租賃合同並非租賃合同，出租人實質上就是一個融資者（相當於債權人、抵押權人），對於租賃物的瑕疵不承擔擔保義務，最多只負責協助承租人向生產商主張權利。4、融資租賃中出租人對於航空器的所有權只具有擔保意義。5、融資租賃中承租人對於航空器的租賃權以及附屬權利具有物權性質。我國加入《開普敦公約》後，應該以此為契機，重新認識融資租賃法律關係的融資擔保意義，在此基礎上與國際接軌，以擔保物權的規格，完善我國的航空器融資租賃的登記制度以及承租人違約時的救濟制度。

With the rapid deve1opment and scale expansion of aircraft industry, financial leasing model as international established practice has taken place in China. However, it also encounters many obstacles which limit the further promotion due to the imperfect legal system. The root of the problems could be traced to the misunderstanding of 'leasing' which usually was interpreted as a special contract rather than a substantial hypothecation. Thus, it is necessary to rereading the nature of financial leasing legal nexus. First1y, The legal relationship in aircraft financial leasing includes but is not limited to two parties, lesser and lessee, basically a three-party structure, namely, among lesser, lessee (airline company) and producer of aircrafts. The original purchaser in sale contract of aircraft is Airline Company (lessee), and then it transfers the purchaser status to lesser (aircraft financial leasing firms); the lessee owns independent claims on account of defects to producer. Secondly, fmancial leasing contract is not a continuous contract, so it doesn't app1y to the ru1e of arbitrary disso1ution, etc. Third1y, the nature of financia1 1easing contract is not mere1y a 1easing contract in essence. In fact, the 1esser in 1easing contract well and tru1y p1ays a ro1e of financing man, equa1 to creditor and mortgagee. It doesn't bear the ob1igation of guarantee on aircrafts but is on1y responsib1e for assisting 1essee to claim to aircraft producers. Fourth1y, the 1esser in financia1 1easing on1y burdens the ob1igation of warrant to the ownership of aircrafts. Fifth1y, the 1essee in financia1 1easing owns the 1easing rights and its ancillary rights which are property rights. As 1 have discussed above, we shou1d strengthen the warrant function of financia1 1easing especia11y after joining in the Cape Town Convention and improve our registration and remedy for breach of contract avai1ab1e by the 1esser based on the before-mentioned perception.