附物權擔保債權人的執行選擇權問題探討

Discussion on the Execution Option of Secured Creditors

附物權擔保的債權人實現其債權時是須先以擔保財產受償抑或得自由選擇債務人的非擔保財產受償的問題，學說與立法例上存在“先行主義”與“選擇主義”之爭。從法理和我國的既有規定及司法實踐情況來看，宜採“限制型選擇主義”的立場：除當事人另有約定外，在並無其他債權人或債務人的財產足以清償全部債務時，附物權擔保的債權人得自由行使選擇權；在“實現擔保物權案件的特別程序”中及單純發生“當事人約定的實現擔保物權的情形”時，應僅限於就擔保財產主張權利。在債務人資不抵債的情況下，應適用破產清算程序或者參與分配程序，其選擇權附有嚴格的條件而不得自由行使。擔保人為債務人之外的第三人時，債權人無權選擇執行第三人的非擔保財產。

In the case of a creditor with a secured property, his creditor's rights must first be compensated by the secured property or be free to choose the debtor's unsecured property. There is a dispute between the theory and the legislation on the 'First Doctrine' and 'Alternative Doctrine'. From the jurisprudence and existing regulations and judicial practice, we should adopt the stand of 'Restrictive Alternative Doctrine': unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a secured creditor is free to exercise the option if no other creditor or the debtor's assets are sufficient to liquidate the whole debt. In the 'special procedures for the realization of security interest cases' and the mere occurrence of 'the parties agreed to the realization of security interests' should be limited to claim on the secured property. In the case of insolvency of the debtor, the insolvency liquidation procedure or participation in the distribution procedure shall be applied, and the right of option shall be subject to strict conditions and shall not be freely exercised. When the guarantor is a third party other than the debtor, the creditor has no right to choose to execute the unsecured property of the third party.