数据资产入表背景下破产程序中数据取回权的解释构造与规则展开

The Interpretive Construction and Normative Elaboration of the Right of Data Reclamation in Bankruptcy Proceedings in the Context of Financial-Statement Recognition of Data Assets

摘要: 企业数据资源进入财务报表以后，其在融资安排、交易定价、资产评估与破产处置中的财产价值被更直接地呈现出来。不过，数据资源入表主要发挥价值表达和信息披露功能，并不当然完成民法意义上的权利归属判断，更不能替代破产法对债务人财产范围的独立审查。传统破产取回权主要以有体物、特定物和排他占有为规范原型，面对无形、可复制、易混合、持续衍生且受合规规则约束的数据资源时，客体特定、权属判断、占有识别和返还方式都会出现适用张力。破产程序中处理数据取回请求，既不能采取“入表即归入债务人财产”的会计化逻辑，也不宜以“来源于他人即当然取回”的来源化逻辑替代实质审查。更可行的方案，是在现行破产法框架内对“占有”“不属于债务人的财产”和“取回”作功能性解释：以排除性数据权益作为权利基础，以账户、密钥、接口、数据库权限等技术控制判断债务人的事实支配，以合规可转移性和合规承继义务划定取回边界，并将救济方式扩展为数据迁移、权限移交、副本删除、限制使用、收益替代和价值补偿等类型化措施。由此，数据取回权才可能在真实权利人保护、债权人公平受偿、企业重整价值维持与数据安全流通之间形成相对稳妥的制度平衡。

Abstract: After corporate data resources are recognized in financial statements, their proprietary value in financing arrangements, transaction pricing, asset valuation, and bankruptcy administration and disposition becomes more directly visible. However, the financial-statement recognition of data resources mainly serves the functions of value representation and information disclosure. It does not, by itself, determine the attribution of rights under civil law, nor can it replace the independent examination of the scope of the debtor’s property under bankruptcy law. The traditional bankruptcy reclamation right is primarily modeled on tangible things, specific objects, and exclusive possession. When applied to data resources that are intangible, replicable, easily commingled, continuously derivative, and subject to compliance rules, tensions arise in terms of object specification, rights attribution, possession identification, and methods of return. In bankruptcy proceedings, requests for data reclamation should neither be governed by an accounting-oriented logic that equates “financial-statement recognition” with “inclusion in the debtor’s property”, nor should they be handled through a source-oriented logic that treats “data originating from another person” as necessarily reclaimable in place of substantive review. A more feasible approach is to provide functional interpretations of “possession”, “property not belonging to the debtor”, and “reclamation” within the existing framework of bankruptcy law: exclusionary data interests should serve as the legal basis of the right; technical control over accounts, keys, interfaces, and database permissions should be used to determine the debtor’s factual control; compliance-based transfer ability and succession to compliance obligations should define the boundary of reclamation; and the available remedies should be expanded into typified measures such as data migration, transfer of permissions, deletion of copies, restrictions on use, substitution with proceeds, and value compensation. In this way, the data reclamation right may achieve a relatively stable institutional balance among the protection of rightful holders, the fair satisfaction of creditors, the preservation of reorganization value, and the secure circulation of data.