買賣型擔保的理論廓清、效力分析與裁判路徑──以最高人民法院的裁判觀點為研究對象

|Buy-and-SellGuarantee|Creditor’s Rights Guarantee|Name is Buy-and-Sell|Actual Loan|Liquidation Procedure|

最高人民法院對買賣型擔保案件的效力認定始終處于左右搖擺的狀態。“買賣合同”容易使人望文生義，其實質為當事人預先約定的新債清償協議。該協議并非當事人通謀的虛假意思表示，也非流質條款，在不違反法律、行政法規的強制性規定時，應為有效。但買賣型擔保未增加或分離出債務人的責任財產，也欠缺法定的公示要件，不屬擔保物權，債權人原則上不享有優先受償權。但合法有效的債權、限制債務人處分之登記、清算和返還程序共同組成了“三道防線”，債權人在滿足上述條件時，可以基于有效的新債清償協議取得標的物之所有權，從而達到優先受償的目的。

The Supreme People’s Court has always been in a state of swing to the left and right. The “contract of sale and purchase” is easy to make people feel comfortable, and its essence is a new debt settlement agreement agreed in advance by the parties. The agreement is not a false expression of intention or a liquid clause, and shall be valid when it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. How-ever, the sale-type security does not increase or separate the debtor’s liability property, also lacks the legal public notice element, does not belong to the security right, the credi-tor does not have the priority to receive the right in principle to the parties after the liquid-dation period to reach the debt agreement, as long as it does not violate the mandatory provisions on private lending, recognize its effect.