應收賬款轉讓的功能主義擔保內核：在先登記原則

《民法典》第768條引發的爭議源於對擔保功能主義的誤讀。功能主義模式並非將應收賬款銷售定性為擔保交易，而是借助聲明登記制來保護應收賬款受讓人，並不涉及自然人之間的債權讓與。是否屬第388條規定的“其他具有擔保功能的合同”，不應取決於被擔保債權的有無，而應著眼于該合同是否發揮融資功能。應收賬款的銷售與擔保存在根本差異，統一適用在先登記原則僅在優先權衝突中具有合理性。當應收賬款讓與人的財產遭到扣押或其進入破產時，必須根據買賣和擔保各自的財產法構造決定讓與人的責任財產範圍。聲明登記制不僅在擔保人有權處分時發揮順位決定效力，在無權處分時也能賦予其法定的處分權限。就應收賬款多重轉讓引發的衝突而言，在先登記原則意味著最先登記的受讓人最終獲得應收賬款的全部權利，而未登記的受讓人面臨相衝突的權利主張時只能失去其享有的應收賬款。

The controversy surrounding Article 768 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China stems from a misinterpretation of security functionalism. The functionalist approach does not treat the sale of accounts receivable as a secured transaction; rather, it relies on the notice filing system to protect the assignee of accounts receivable, without addressing the assignment of claims between natural persons.“Other contracts with security functions”under Article 388 of the Chinese Civil Code should not be evaluated based on whether a secured claim exists, but instead on whether the contract serves a financing function. A fundamental distinction exists between a true sale of accounts receivable and secured transactions, and the uniform application of the first-to-file principle is only justified in cases of priority conflicts. When the assignor’s property is seized or the assignor enters bankruptcy, the scope of the assignor’s bankruptcy estate must be determined in accordance with the distinct legal frameworks governing sales and secured transactions, respectively. The notice filing system not only establishes priority when the assignor has the authority to transfer, but also grants the assignor the statutory power to transfer in cases of unauthorized disposition. Regarding conflicts arising from multiple assignments of receivables, the first-to-file-or-perfect rule implies that the assignee who first files the claim will ultimately acquire full rights to the receivables, while unfiled assignees will lose their claims when faced with conflicting filed claims