摘要
对于纯粹将来债权处分合意的生效时点,我国司法实践与文献一边倒地秉持预先处分模式的解释结果。然而,以是否承认纯粹将来债权于处分合意时即可作为处分对象为标准,可以区分为现时处分与预先处分两种模式。历史上已经存在现时处分的可能性,而现时处分引发的直接取得效力亦有利于资产证券化中的投资人保护。处分行为的各项生效要件的规范目的有追问必要。处分行为的“既有”教义并非阻拦认可处分纯粹将来债权于合意时即有效的理由,因此不会限制当事人就此达成的合意发生现时处分效力。而纯粹将来债权的确定性可以借助负担行为的可确定性实现。在就同一纯粹将来债权实施矛盾处分的场合,《民法典》第768条提供了正当性基础。
Regarding the point in time at which an agreement to disposition of a purely future claim becomes effective,Chinese judicial practice and scholarship have uniformly embraced the advance disposition model.However,if one uses as the criterion whether a purely future claim is recognized as a disposable object at the moment the agreement is concluded,two models can be distinguished:the present disposition model and the advance disposition model.Historically,the possibility of present disposition has existed,and the direct acquisition effect that arises from it also contributes to the protection of investors in asset securitization.It is necessary to examine the normative objectives underlying the various effectiveness requirements for disposition act.The doctrine of“existing interest”in disposition law does not justify refusing to recognize that a disposition agreement regarding a pruely future claim takes effect upon agreement,and thus does not preclude the parties from achieving present disposition effect.The certainty of a purely future claim can be secured through the determinability of the burdening act.In instances where contradictory dispositions are made in respect of the same purely future claim,Article 768 of the Civil Code provides a legitimate foundation.
出处
《南大法学》
2025年第4期47-64,共18页
NanJing University Law Journal
关键词
将来债权
将来债权处分
现时处分
预先处分
Future Claims
Disposition of Future Claims
Present Disposition
Advance Disposition
作者简介
吴昊,上海交通大学民商法学博士生。
