|
《民法典》背景下债权人受领性质之探析
|
Abstract:
受领是债权人的权利抑或是义务是学界难有定论的问题,随着《民法典》的颁布,以第589条为核心的债权人受领迟延规范登上历史舞台,规定于合同编通则中作为履行障碍法的制度之一。文章通过对《民法典》第589条进行体系解释,释明了《民法典》对于债权人受领是否为其普遍的合同义务的问题,原则上采否定的立场。并通过对比较法以及当事人之间利益状况的考察,提出了债权人受领上升为合同义务的判断标准:在实证法难以充分保护遭受受领迟延的债务人的利益时,应当将债权人的受领上升为合同义务,为债务人提供充足的救济手段。同时,文章还指明了在无法通过提存消灭债务人的给付义务、当事人之间基于实现共同目的形成了“协同体结合”之债权债务关系、债务人负有先履行义务这三种具体的情形下,应该将债权人的受领上升为合同义务,为债权人受领迟延制度的体系化构建奠定基础。
Whether claiming is a creditor’s right or obligation is a difficult issue for the academia to decide. With the enactment of the Civil Code, the delay in creditor’s claim, which is centered on Article 589, has come into the stage of history and is stipulated as one of the systems of the Law of Obstacles to Performance in the General Provisions of the Contracts Series. This article explains the systematic interpretation of Article 589 of the Civil Code, and explains that the Civil Code adopts a negative position in principle on the question of whether creditor’s acceptance is its general contractual obligation. And through the examination of the comparative law and the interests of the parties, it puts forward the judgment criterion that the creditor’s receipt rises to be a contractual obligation: when the empirical law is difficult to adequately protect the interests of the debtor who suffers from the delay of the receipt, the creditor’s receipt should rise to be a contractual obligation to provide the debtor with sufficient means of relief. At the same time, this paper also points out it can’t through the deposit to eliminate the debtor’s obligation to pay, between the parties based on the realization of the common purpose of the formation of the “synergistic body bond” of the debt relationship, the debtor has the obligation of first performance of the three specific circumstances, the creditor should be uploaded into the contractual obligation, for the creditor to receive the systematic construction of the delay system, laying the foundation for the systematic construction of the system of delay in creditor’s receipt.
[1] | 赵天. 论债权人受领迟延——评《民法典》合同编589条[J]. 攀登, 2020, 39(5): 105-110. |
[2] | 韩世远. 合同法总论[M]. 第4版. 北京: 法律出版社, 2018: 571. |
[3] | 史尚宽. 债法总论[M]. 台北: 荣泰印书馆股份有限公司出版社, 1954: 407. |
[4] | 唐启光. 债权人受领迟延几个问题的研究[J]. 法学杂志, 2005(3): 80-82. |
[5] | 台湾大学法律学院, 台大法学基金会. 德国民法典[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2016(2): 259-261. |
[6] | 齐晓琨. 解读德国《民法典》中的债权人迟延制度[J]. 南京大学学报(哲学?人文科学?社会科学版), 2010, 47(2): 134-147. |
[7] | 王利明. 违约责任论(修订版) [M]. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2003: 175-176. |
[8] | 崔建远. 违约责任探微[J]. 法治研究, 2022(6): 18-34. |
[9] | 谢德良. 论《民法典》视角下的债权人受领义务[J]. 甘肃政法大学学报, 2023(1): 76-88. |
[10] | 重庆市江北区人民法院. 周晓梅与重庆点击建筑劳务有限公司租赁合同纠纷执行案[民事判决书] [Z]. (2013)江法民执字第102号. |
[11] | 吴逸宁. 民法典编纂视野下的债权人不履行受领行为的责任规范整合[J]. 法治研究, 2018(5): 116-126. |
[12] | 韩世远. 提存论——《合同法》第101-104条的解释论[J]. 现代法学, 2004(3): 141-147. |
[13] | [日]我妻荣. 新订债权总论[M]. 北京: 中国法制出版社, 1964: 6-7. |
[14] | 安徽省芜湖市鸠江区人民法院. 芜湖市鸠江区二坝镇人民政府与黄文林房屋拆迁安置补偿合同纠纷案[民事判决书] [Z]. (2016)皖0207民初340号. |