论基于生效法律文书的个别清偿在破产程序中的撤销  

Research on the Revocation of Individual Repayment in Bankruptcy Proceedings Based on Effective Legal Documents

作　　者：丁金钰 DING Jinyu

机构地区：[1]北京交通大学法学院

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2024年第3期62-74,共13页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“民事强制执行基础理论研究”(项目编号:20BFX082)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：在破产临界期内,债务人依据具有执行力的生效法律文书实施个别清偿极有可能加速债务人资不抵债的到来,难以维护债权人的整体利益,实现全体债权人平等受偿的破产法目的。对于这种实践中常见的偏颇行为撤销情形,《破产法解释二》第15条却采取了破产撤销权“否定说”的制度安排,该规定有利于保护当事人对生效法律文书的信赖利益,却无意中为特定债权人恶意利用诉讼、仲裁等方式“哄抢”债务人财产提供了制度温床。在破产撤销权行使受阻的情况下,有必要在程序法上为受损害的其他债权人寻找救济渠道。2019年《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》第120条对于普通债权人提起第三人撤销之诉采“肯定说”,为破产领域提供了类推适用的解释论空间。基于破产撤销权与债权人撤销权原理上的相似性,应允许管理人以诉讼担当人身份提起第三人撤销之诉来对抗已为生效裁判既判力遮断的偏颇性清偿,并通过降低申请人证明标准,证明责任适当转换,加大法院依职权调查取证力度以及拓宽管理人调查取证权等手段,破解“恶意串通”要件事实证据偏在的困境。During the critical period of bankruptcy,the implementation of individual settlements by debtors based on enforceable legal documents is highly likely to accelerate the arrival of debtor insolvency,making it difficult to achieve the overall interests of numerous creditors and the goal of equal compensation under bankruptcy law.For the common biased behavior of revocation in practice,Article 15 of the Judicial Interpretation II of Bankruptcy Law adopts the institutional arrangement of the“negation theory”of bankruptcy revocation right.This provision is conducive to protect the trust interests of the parties in the execution name,but unintentionally provides the institutional breeding ground for some creditors to maliciously use litigation,arbitration and other means to“plunder”the debtor’s property.In cases where the exercise of bankruptcy revocation rights is obstructed,it is necessary to seek relief channels for other creditors who have suffered damages in procedural law.Article 120 of the 2019 Minutes of the National Conference on Civil and Commercial Trial Work of Courts adopts the“affirmative theory”for ordinary creditors to file a lawsuit for third-party revocation,providing an explanatory space for analogical application in the field of bankruptcy.Based on the similarity in the principles of bankruptcy revocation rights and creditor revocation rights,the administrator should be allowed to file a third-party revocation lawsuit as the person in charge of the lawsuit to counter the biased repayment that has been blocked by the effective judgment.By reducing the applicant’s proof standard,appropriately shifting the burden of proof,increasing the court’s investigation and evidence collection power based on authority,and expanding the administrator’s investigation and evidence collection power,the dilemma of biased factual evidence in the element of“malicious collusion”can be solved.

关 键 词：执行名义 个别清偿 偏颇清偿 破产撤销权 第三人撤销之诉 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]