讓與擔保合同效力探析——兼議《借貸合同若幹規定》第二十四條

On the Validity of Transferring Guarantee and Article 24 of

近來，讓與擔保因其應用的廣泛性及合同效力的不確定性，而在理論和實務界引起論爭。細究其原因，系對此類合同性質認識不一。有學者主張其為以物抵債協議，而本文認為其應屬讓與擔保合同。此類合同效力飽受詬病的因由，主要包括以下四點：屬於以合法形式掩飾非法目的；違反法律法規強制性規定；存在流質條款；違背物權法定。《民間借貸規定》第24條以民間借貸法律關系為基礎，將讓與擔保視為一種債之擔保，進而對權利人課以清算義務，為實務中認定讓與擔保合同效力提供了新的進路。但本文認為，讓與擔保實為物之擔保，對其規範亦不應止步於司法解釋，宜借助民法典修改之機，將該制度納入法典加以規範。如此，方能使該制度的構建符合社會發展趨勢，有益於經濟之融通。

Recently, transferring guarantee has aroused debate in both theory and practice due to its broad application and the uncertainty of its validity. The reason lies in the divergence regarding the nature of such contracts. Some scholars think it is an agreement for paying debts in kind in essence while this paper considers it to be Transferring Guarantee. The reasons why the validity of such contracts is challenged are as follows: the contract intends to conceal an illegal purpose under the guise of a legitimate transaction; the contract violates a mandatory provision of laws or administrative regulations; it belongs to fluidity contracts; it violates the principle of Legal Prescription of Real Right. Article 24 of Regulations for Folk Debit and Credit considers transferring guarantee as one kind of security of obligation based on legal relationship of folk debit and credit and inflict liquidation obligations on right holders, which provides a new way to determine the validity of transferring guarantee contracts. However, this paper believes that transferring guarantee is actually a guarantee of real right which shall be provided in the Civil Code as the compiling of the Civil Code instead of only providing in judicial interpretation. Thus, the provisions of such system can conform to the trend of social development and bring benefits to the economy.