|
|
|
| Legislative Approaches to Personal Property Security: Expressions, Elements and Judgements |
| Zhang Shidi |
| Law School, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310014, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China has brought profound changes to the personal property security system through the legislative approach of combining formalism and functionalism. Both legislators and academic circles take this legislative method as the foundation and starting point of the argument, but the interpretation theory does not point out the specific content of the legislative method now. At present, the interpretation theory of personal property security is difficult to obtain unity and self-consistency in the interpretation of a specific security method, and it is trapped in the cycle of interpretation theory. The normative system of personal property security in China can be divided into three types of normative expressions: “formalism”, “functionalism” and “both functionalism and formalism”. Formalism is mainly reflected in the fact that the Civil Code still sets specific provisions according to different types of rights. The norms of functionalism include unified security contracts, unified perfection rules and unified priority rules. The expression of the combination of functionalism and formalism includes the rules of the effectiveness of the security right of movable property against third parties, the separation of the special movable property perfection system from the personal property and other security interests perfection system, and the coexistence of the right of recall and the right of priority. The legislative method of personal property security can be extracted into three elements: security function, limited entry and legal fiction. The security function is born in the provision of Article 388 of the Civil Code “other contracts with guarantee functions”. The security interests, especially the atypical guarantee, the premise of applying the security interest system, is that the contract has the security function of improving the debtor’s credit enhancement. Legal fiction means that because of the same function, atypical guarantee is deemed as a security interest, but it should still be restricted by its basic relationship in the absence of security function. Limited entry aims at limiting the expansion of the scope of application of guarantee norms. Security function is the requirement of functionalism, legal fiction is the way to realize security function, limited access is the limitation of security function, and it is also the manifestation of formalism. There is some space for further adjustment on the issues of functionalism and real right change mode, registration antagonism, formalism and fictional security rights. The parties have other interests with security functions through “other contracts with security functions”, and these rights are security interests. The doctrine of numerus clauses requires that the types of property rights be stipulated by law, and the “other” in Article 388 cannot clarify the types of such contracts. Even if these unnamed personal security rights cannot be registered, they are still real rights. Although they are not against other confrontational real rights, these unnamed chattel security rights can still take precedence over other creditor’s rights. The registration antagonism of the current personal property security is limited to the subsequent security right holder, and the antagonism effect is only to warn the subsequent transaction party that there may be a secured transaction on the secured property. When the atypical guarantee, which is proposed as a security interest, coexists with the general liability guarantee or the property guarantee provided by the third party, when the security right holder is reluctant to exercise the right, resulting in the reduction or damage or loss of the value of the property, its behavior can be regarded as giving up part or all of the property guarantee, and the guarantor and other security interest holders can reduce or waive the liability within the scope of their waiver rights.
|
|
Received: 25 May 2024
|
|
|
|
1 龙俊：《民法典中的动产和权利担保体系》，《法学研究》2020年第6期，第22-42页。
2 高圣平：《动产担保交易的功能主义与形式主义——中国〈民法典〉的处理模式及其影响》，《国外社会科学》2020年第4期，第4-17页。
3 张玉涛：《超级优先权规则的构成要件及体系效应》，《私法》2023年第5期，第66-93页。
4 李运杨：《动产担保立法中的功能主义：缘起、内涵及发展》，《比较法研究》2023年第6期，第122-138页。
5 《美国统一商法典》，潘琪译，北京：法律出版社，2018年。
6 张家勇：《体系视角下所有权担保的规范效果》，《法学》2020年第8期，第3-18页。
7 王利明：《担保制度的现代化：对〈民法典〉第388条第1款的评析》，《法学家》2021年第1期，第30-39，192页。
8 李宇：《民法典中债权让与和债权质押规范的统合》，《法学研究》2019年第1期，第56-77页。
9 张家勇：《物上担保权益的分层构造及实现保障》，《中国法学》2024年第2期，第204-225页。
10 高圣平：《民法典动产担保权优先顺位规则的解释论》，《清华法学》2020年第3期，第93-115页。
11 周江洪：《民法典合同编的制度变迁》，《地方立法研究》2020年第5期，第1-22页。
12 程啸、高圣平、谢鸿飞：《最高人民法院新担保司法解释理解与适用》，北京：法律出版社，2021年。
13 欧洲民法典研究组、欧盟现行私法研究组编著：《欧洲示范民法典草案：欧洲私法的原则、定义和示范规则》，高圣平译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2012年。
14 庄加园：《动产担保物权的默示延伸》，《法学研究》2021年第2期，第35-54页。
15 纪海龙：《动产担保权益延伸的合意路径》，《现代法学》2022年第3期，第3-18页。
16 高圣平：《〈民法典〉视野下统一动产和权利担保登记制度的构造》，《浙江工商大学学报》2020年第5期，第38-52页。
17 周江洪：《所有权保留买卖的体系性反思——担保构成、所有权构成及合同构成的纠葛与梳理》，《社会科学辑刊》2022年第1期，第82-92，2页。
18 章诗迪：《民法典视阈下所有权保留的体系重构》，《华东政法大学学报》2022年第2期，第180-192页。
19 姜孝贤、宋方青：《立法方法论探析》，《厦门大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2016年第3期，第38-45页。
20 王利明：《担保物权制度的现代化与我国〈民法典〉的亮点》，《上海政法学院学报（法治论丛）》2021年第1期，第1-19页。
21 谢鸿飞：《〈民法典〉实质担保观的规则适用与冲突化解》，《法学》2020年第9期，第3-20页。
22 单平基：《土地经营权融资担保的法实现——以〈农村土地承包法〉为中心》，《江西社会科学》2020年第2期，第26-36页。
23 杜换涛：《民法典视域下土地经营权融资担保规则的适用》，《法律适用》2023年第6期，第45-54页。
24 王家国：《所有权的拟制属性与社会功能——兼论“公的所有权”及其实现路径》，《法制与社会发展》2015年第4期，第112-126页。
25 Wangerin P.， “‘Deemed’ security interests in UCC Article 9： avoiding traps for the unwary introduction，” DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal， Vol. 14， No. 1 （2015）， pp. 78-109.
26 张家勇：《论融资租赁的担保交易化及其限度》，《社会科学辑刊》2022年第2期，第76-85，209页。
27 李运杨：《〈民法典〉动产担保制度对功能主义的分散式继受》，《华东政法大学学报》2022年第4期，第107-121页。
28 刘保玉：《民法典担保物权制度新规释评》，《法商研究》2020年第5期，第3-18页。
29 杨立新：《“其他具有担保功能的合同”概念的实用功能》，《中国政法大学学报》2022年第3期，第47-60页。
30 孙宪忠、朱广新主编：《民法典评注·物权编》，北京：中国法制出版社，2020年。
31 孙宪忠：《中国物权法总论》（第4版），北京：法律出版社，2018年。
32 高富平：《物权法专论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2007年。
33 章诗迪：《价款担保权规范适用的体系性解释》，《浙江学刊》2021年第4期，第95-103页。
34 德］卡尔·拉伦茨：《法学方法论》（全本·第6版），黄家镇译，北京：商务印书馆，2020年。
35 最高人民法院民法典贯彻实施工作领导小组主编：《中华人民共和国民法典物权编理解与适用》，北京：人民法院出版社，2020年。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
