封闭回款协议与应收账款质押之比较——兼论应收账款质押制度的完善  

A Comparison of Closed Fund-restreaming Agreement and the Accounts Receivable Pledge——Also on the Improvement of the Accounts Receivable Pledge System

作　　者：罗欢平[1] 

机构地区：[1]南京审计学院,江苏南京211815

出　　处：《征信》2013年第4期19-22,共4页Credit Reference

基　　金：江苏省高校哲学社会科学基金项目(2011SJB820009)

摘　　要：实践中被广泛运用的封闭回款协议本质上是一种应收账款担保融资途径,但因为缺乏有效的公示方法,贷款人的优先受偿权并不具有对抗第三人的效力,以致该协议并不能实现有关主体的预期目的。应收账款担保融资的现实需求决定了完善现行应收账款质押制度的迫切性。将通知付款人(第三债务人)规定为应收账款质权的设立要件,是完善应收账款质权理论和实现当事人利益均衡的双重需要。The closed fund-restreaming agreement which is broadly used in practice is in essence a way of financing secured by accounts receivable. Owing to the lack of effective method of public announcement, the creditor＇ s priority to be repaid can not challenge any third party, which leads to the failure of the intended purpose of the agreement. It＇ s urgent for the actual need of financing secured by accounts receivable to call for the improvement of the accounts receivable pledge system. It＇ s the dual demand for improving the accounts receivable pledge theory and balancing the interests of the parties to specify the notifier of payment （ third obligor） as one of the requirements of establishment of the accounts receivable pledge.

关 键 词：封闭回款协议 应收账款 质押 通知付款人 

分 类 号：D923.2[政治法律—民商法学] F275[政治法律—法学]