【作者】 周磊；

【导师】 房绍坤；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2022， 硕士

【摘要】 保理是以应收账款债权转让为核心的交易形式,保理人追索权则是保证保理债权最终实现的法律手段。当前,我国理论界和实务界对有追索权保理合同的性质存在争议,主要集中于债权转让说、间接给付说和狭义让与担保说等观点,而不同观点下保理人追索权在性质、行使及救济问题上存在着不同的逻辑证成路径和请求权基础,因此,探究保理人追索权首要是明确民法典体系下有追索权保理合同的性质,由此进一步廓清保理人追索权的性质。同时,保理人追索权在特定条件下也可以产生于无追索权保理合同,对于该种保理人追索权的性质亦需要进行廓清。依据《民法典》第766条规定,有追索权保理人在实现保理债权时,既可以向应收账款债权人主张其履行回购义务或返还义务,又可以向应收账款债务人主张应收账款变价清偿,同时保理人负担清算义务。由此观察前述三种学说可知,“狭义让与担保说”更符合民法典体系逻辑,在该前提下,保理人追索权性质属于债权请求权自无疑义;同时,约定追索权本身就是应收账款债权人对保理债权实现的保证手段,且保理人追索权作为整体概念,其行使上表现出在具体法律关系中对应特定权利的特点,其所对应请求权基础和逻辑证成路径亦有不同。由此观之,保理人追索权并非单一的权利,而是多种权利的集合,即权利束。权利的生命在于行使,依据民法典规定可知,保理人追索权的内容主要包括:主张应收账款债权人返还保理融资款本息或回购应收账款债权。保理人追索权在行使中面临的主要问题有三个:保理人追索权是否劣后于应收账款债权、应收账款转让通知债务人与否对保理人追索权行使的影响、应收账款债权被多重处分时保理人清偿顺位的确定。此时保理人追索权在行使上根据前述情况不同,其权利内容也存在差异。经本文论证可知,有追索权保理作为债权让与担保合同,应当遵循担保的一般行使规则,《民法典》第766条所涉之行使规则应当被解释为保理人追索权优先于应收账款债权清偿。换言之,保理人追索权行使不受是否主张应收账款债权清偿所限。另外,在有追索权保理中,保理人追索权行使不受是否为应收账款转让通知的限制,在应收账款被多重处分时,其行使受应收账款被为物权处分或债权处分的不同情况而有所不同。保理人追索权被侵害表现为权利行使不能或行使无效果,在救济上主要有违约救济和侵权救济两种途径。一方面,其救济本身与保理债权实现相联系,且在侵权救济与违约救济上存在竞合;另一方面,依据“广义的债权侵权”观点来看,应收账款债权人也可以成为侵害保理人追索权的侵权行为人,保理人对其享有主张救济的权利,虽然其实际效果与主张保理债权清偿相同,但二者所依据请求权基础和论证逻辑存在差异,故应当予以明确。更多还原

【Abstract】 Factoring is a transaction form with the transfer of accounts receivable claims as the core,and the factor’s recourse is a legal means to ensure the final realization of factoring claims.At present,there are disputes in China’s theoretical and practical circles about the nature of the recourse factoring contract,mainly focusing on the theory of assignment of creditor’s rights,the theory of indirect payment and the narrow sense of transferring guarantee.While under different views,there are different logical proof paths and the basis of the right of claim on the issue of nature,exercise and relief of the factor’ recourse.So the exploration of the factor’s recourse is first of all to clarify the nature of the recourse factoring contract under the Chinese Civil Code system,thereby further clarifying the nature of the factor’s recourse.At the same time,the factor’s recourse can also arise from non-recourse factoring contract under certain conditions,and the nature of the factor’s recourse also needs to be clarified.Pursuant to article 766 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China,where the parties agree that the factoring is one with the right of recourse,the factor may claim against the creditor of the account receivable for refunding the principal and interest of the financing funds or redemption of the claim on the account receivable,or claim against the debtor of the account receivable.Where a factor claims against the debtor of the account receivable after deducting the principal and interest of the financing funds and the other relevant expenses,any balance shall be returned to the debtor of the account receivable.From this observation of the above three theories,it can be seen that the theory of "narrow transferring guarantee" is more in line with the logic of the civil code system.Under this premise,it is no doubt that the nature of the factor’s recourse belongs to the claim of creditor’s rights;At the same time,the agreed recourse itself is a guarantee means for the realization of the factoring claim by the accounts receivable creditor,and the factor’s recourse,as a whole concept,shows the characteristics of corresponding specific rights in specific legal relations,and the basis and logical proof path of the corresponding claim are also different.From this point of view,the factor’s right of recourse is not a single right,but a collection of multiple rights.According to the provisions of the Civil Code,the content of the factor’s recourse mainly includes: claiming that the creditor of the receivables returns the principal and interest of the factoring financing funds or repurchases the claims of the receivables.There are three main issues in the exercise of the right of recourse: whether the factor’s recourse is inferior to the claim of the receivable,the impact of the notification of the assignment of the receivable on the exercise of the recourse of the factor,and the determination of the order of repayment of the claim of the receivable by the factor after multiple dispositions.At this time,the exercise and content of the factor’s right of recourse is different according to the above-mentioned circumstances.From the argument in this article,it can be seen that recourse factoring,as a contract of assignment and security of claims,should follow the general rules for the exercise of security,and the exercise rules referred to in article 766 of the Civil Code should be interpreted as the factor’s right of recourse has priority over the settlement of claims receivable.In other words,the exercise of the factor’s right of recourse is not subject to the claim of satisfaction of the receivables claim.In addition,in factoring with a right of recourse,the exercise of the factor’s right of recourse is not limited by whether it is a notice of assignment of accounts receivable,and when the accounts receivable are subject to multiple dispositions,the exercise of the factor’s recourse is subject to means as a property right or an obligatory claim.The infringement of the factor’s right of recourse is manifested as the inability to exercise the right or the exercise of no effect,and there are two main ways of remedying breach of contract and tort relief in terms of relief.On the one hand,its remedies themselves are linked to the realization of factoring claims,and there is competition between tort remedies and breach of contract remedies;On the other hand,according to the "broad sense of claim infringement",accounts receivable creditors also meet the qualifications of infringers who infringe on the factor’s right of recourse,and the factor has the right to claim relief,although its actual effect is the same as that of claiming the settlement of factoring claims,but there are differences in the basis of the claim and the logic of argumentation on which the two are based,so it should be clarified.更多还原