【作者】 周杰；

【导师】 梁亚； 崔永青；

【作者基本信息】 河北科技大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 2020年出台的《民法典》明确将保理合同规定为有名合同,然而,在涉及虚构应收账款时合同效力的判定及责任分配问题上,法律条文尚不够明晰。司法实践中虚构应收账款情形主要有以下三种情形:债权人与债务人共同虚构、债权人单方面虚构、保理人与债权人共同虚构。对于债权人与债务人共同虚构和债权人单独虚构这两种情形,其基础合同无效,如果保理合同本身不存在法定无效情形,则为可撤销合同,在保理人主张撤销之前,依然具有法律效力。对于债权人与保理人共同虚构的情形,因双方虚伪意思表示导致保理合同无效,法院通常会将此隐藏行为认定为变相借款行为,而该借款行为是否合法有效,很大程度上取决于保理人是否具备合法的金融放贷业务资格。在虚构应收账款的保理合同纠纷中,债权人可能面临缔约过失、违约及侵权等多方面责任,其中缔约过失责任与违约责任属于合同责任,具体取决于保理人是否选择撤销或解除合同。合同责任与侵权责任存在请求权基础的竞合,保理人只能择一主张。债务人承担责任与否取决于其过错的性质和程度。若债务人共同参与虚构应收账款,则应当与债权人一起承担连带侵权责任。若债务人在知晓应收账款为虚构的情况下仍对其进行确认和承诺,应依据其过错程度承担相应的损害赔偿责任。认定保理人违背审查义务应当理解为以形式审查为主,对于保理人“明知”虚构应收账款的证明责任,由提出抗辩的债务人来承担。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Civil Code promulgated in 2020 stipulates that factoring contracts are famous contracts.However,the legal provisions are not clear enough on the determination of contract effectiveness and the distribution of liability when it comes to fictitious receivables.In judicial practice,there are mainly three situations of fictitious receivables:joint fiction by creditors and debtors,unilateral fiction by creditors,and joint fiction by factors and creditors.In the two situations of joint fiction by creditors and debtors and separate fiction by creditors,the underlying contract is invalid.If there is no legal invalidity in the factoring contract itself,it is a revocable contract and still has legal effect before the factor claims for cancellation.In the case of joint fiction by creditors and factors,the court usually regards this hidden behavior as a disguised borrowing behavior due to the false intention of both parties,and whether the borrowing behavior is legal and effective largely depends on whether the factor has the legal qualification for financial lending business.The creditor could potentially face legal liability for acts of contractual negligence,breach of contract,tortuous conduct,and other related factors.Among these liabilities,the liabilities arising from contractual negligence and breach of contract are categorized as contractual liabilities.Nevertheless,these two types are distinguished based on whether the party intends to rescind or terminate the contract.On the other hand,it is incumbent upon the debtor to ascertain its liability by assessing its level of fault.The debtor will be subject to joint and several tort liability with the creditor if they are involved in the creation of fictitious accounts receivable.Additionally,if the debtor acknowledges and assumes the fictitious creditor’s rights upon receiving notice of the assignment of creditor’s rights,they will be held liable for damages based on their level of fault.The factor shall bear the corresponding responsibility for the breach of the obligation of review,and its obligation of review shall be understood as a formal review,and the burden of proof that the factor "knowingly" shall be borne by the debtor who raises the defense.更多还原