债权人撤销权的实现路径及法律效果——以《民法典合同编通则解释》第46条为中心

The Realization Path and Legal Effects of the Creditor’s Right of Avoidance—Centering on Article 46 of the Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Contract Section of the Civil Code

摘要: 债权人撤销权属于债的保全制度，旨在维持债务人财产，以此保障债权得以实现。但撤销权诉讼仅仅产生形成效力，无法直接达成债权清偿的目的。《民法典合同编通则解释》第46条确立了“撤销权 + 强制执行”的途径，准许债权人在撤销权诉讼期间同时要求相对人将财产返还给债务人，并且依据双重生效法律文书去申请强制执行。该规则在实体法方面采用了撤销权兼具形成权与请求权的折中说法，在程序法方面建立了审执衔接的递进式救济机制。这一途径虽然在形式上遵循入库规则，但是通过程序衔接实际上达成了对积极行使撤销权债权人的优先保护，协调了债权平等原则与权利行使激励之间的紧张关系。在具体应用时，需明确法官的释明义务，细化执行规则，合理界定连环转让情形下的撤销范围，以及厘清与恶意串通规则的适用关系。

Abstract: The creditor’s right of avoidance serves as a core mechanism of debt preservation, designed to preserve the debtor’s estate for the benefit of all creditors. Yet an avoidance action alone produces only a formative effect and does not directly satisfy the creditor’s claim. Article 46 of the Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Contract Section of the Civil Code introduces a “right of avoidance + compulsory enforcement” pathway, allowing the creditor to demand the return of property to the debtor during the avoidance proceedings and to seek enforcement based on two final and binding judgments. Substantively, this rule embraces the mixed theory under which the right of avoidance functions as both a right of formation and a right of claim. Procedurally, it establishes a stepwise remedial framework bridging trial and enforcement. While formally respecting the incorporation rule, this pathway effectively grants preferential protection to the diligent creditor through procedural coordination, thus balancing the principle of equality among creditors with the need to incentivize right-assertion. In practice, courts should clarify the judge’s duty to give guidance, refine enforcement rules, delimit the scope of avoidance in chain-transfer scenarios, and distinguish the application of this rule from the doctrine of voidance for malicious conspiracy.