意思自治原则下债之混同规则的适用限制  

Limitation on the Application of the Rule on Confusion of Debts Under the Principle of Autonomy of Will

作　　者：凌骏达 Ling Junda

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《法学》2024年第9期108-125,共18页Law Science

摘　　要：债之混同规则的正当性源于混同当事人之意思,混同债权的消灭并非基于事件,而是基于混同当事人所实施的清偿或者免除的自我行为。在混同债权本身具有流通性利益、经营管理利益,以及混同债权之上存在预告登记、责任保险与第三人担保等权利或者利益等典型案型下,混同当事人还可能不实施任何行为以使债权存续。目前的学界通说既忽视了混同当事人之意思,又无法妥当处理上述典型案型。在对债之混同展开具体分析时,应当区分主体合并与自我行为两个层次:主体合并不导致债权消灭,而仅排除该债权的可诉性;一般财团与特别财团(包括发生混同的债权在内)通过自我行为完成清算,最终决定混同债权的命运。《民法典》第576条主文系意思表示解释规则,而但书系当事人实施自我行为之权限的注意规定。The rule of merger of debts is based on the will of the party.The extinguishment of the debt results from the party's juristic act,namely performance or release.In the typical situations where the debt itself represents a circulating interest,management interest,or the debt is the base of advance notice registration,liability insurance or the guarantee from the third party,the party may do nothing to make the debt survive.The current general doctrine ignores the will of the party and fails to properly deal with the above typical cases.When analyzing such a case,a distinction should be made between the merger of subjects and the self-act:the merger of subjects does not result in the extinction of the debt,but only excludes its actionability;the liquidation of a general property and a special property(including the merged debt)is accomplished through the party's self-act,which ultimately determines the fate of the debt.The main part of Article 576 of the Civil Code is an interpretation rule,while the proviso is a norm that highlights the restriction of the juristic act.

关 键 词：债之混同 债的消灭事由 可诉性排除 自我行为 财团清算 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]