擔保物權的法律構造：歷史演進與體系整合

Legal Structure of Security Interest: Historical Evolution and System Integration

擔保物權的法律構造存在權利移轉型擔保和權利設定型擔保兩種形態。前者爲當事人通過移轉財産所有權實現擔保效果，後者是擔保人爲債權人在財産上直接設定限制性擔保物權。縱觀兩大法系中擔保物權的演進歷史，權利移轉型擔保爲擔保物權的初級階段，近代法典與判例法則確立了權利設定型擔保與權利移轉型擔保二元並存的模式，後在美國擔保法功能主義的影響下呈現出權利設定型擔保一元化的趨勢。《民法典》對擔保物權法進行了不徹底的功能主義改造，形成了權利移轉型擔保與權利設定型擔保並存的二元結構。在權利設定型擔保尤其是抵押權制度趨於完備的基礎上，權利移轉型擔保並無獨立存在的空間。通過對擔保物權的類型進行體系整合並借助准用規範進行規範統合，可消除二元結構下規範解釋適用的張力，並爲未來權利設定型擔保的一元化發展奠定基礎。

There are two types of legal structure in security interest which are title transfer financing and rights creation financing. The former constitutes a secured transaction by transferring title of property between parties and the latter for debtor is to create security interest for creditor directly. Throughout the history of evolution of security interest in both legal systems, the title transfer financing is original form of security interest. The modern civil code and case law confirmed the dual co-existence structure of title transfer financing and rights creation financing. Under the influence of functionalism in American security law, it showed a trend of unity model of rights creation financing. China’s Civil Code carried out an incomplete functionalism transformation in security law and established the dual co-existence structure. On the basis that the rights creation financing, especially the mortgage system tends to be completed, there is no necessary for title transfer financing. By systematically integrating security interests and unifying rules with mutatis mutandis rules, the tension in interpretation and application of rules under dual structure could be eliminated and the foundation for the unity model of rights creation financing is laid.