从解释论视角看以物抵债——以《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉合同编通则若干问题的解释》第27、28条为中心

From the Perspective of Interpretation: Debt-for-Property Swap—Centered on Articles 27 and 28 of the Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Contract Book of the Civil Code

摘要: 以物抵债是我国现实民商事实践中广泛存在的非典型合同，其性质认定和法律适用在法律学术界受到广泛讨论，存在较大争议。《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉合同编通则若干问题的解释》第27条、第28条系统回应了以物抵债协议的核心制度问题，围绕以物抵债协议的合同性质、功能类型、新旧债关系、选择权配置、无权处分、流押流质适用边界及与让与担保的衔接等问题作出了系统的法律规制。本文将通过司法解释论，围绕《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉合同编通则若干问题的解释》27条和28条对于以物抵债的规制展开分条研究，进行体系化梳理。从法条以时间为界将以物抵债协议分类为履行期满前与履行期满后为切入，逐条分析第27条与第28条的规范内涵。探讨了诺成性合同的定性依据、新旧债并存的优先清偿结构、债权人选择权的启动条件、无权处分下违约责任与不当得利的边界，以及期前协议中清算型约定与流押流质禁止规则的实质关系。

Abstract: Debt-for-property swap is a widely existing atypical legal phenomenon in China’s civil and commercial practice. Its legal nature and application have been extensively debated in legal academia, with considerable controversy. Articles 27 and 28 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of the Contract Book of the Civil Code systematically address, for the first time, the core issues of debt-for-property agreements, covering the nature of the contract, functional types, the relationship between old and new debts, allocation of the right to choose performance, unauthorized disposition, the boundary of the prohibition of fluidity pledges, and the interface with alienation guarantee. Through the lens of judicial interpretation, this article conducts a systematic analysis of the provisions concerning debt-for-property swap in Articles 27 and 28. It takes as its starting point the classification based on the time of performance—agreements concluded before versus after maturity—and examines the normative implications of each provision. The discussion explores the basis for characterizing the contract as consensual, the priority structure of coexistence of old and new debts, the conditions triggering the creditor’s option right, the boundary between liability for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in cases of unauthorized disposition, and the substantive relationship between liquidation-type clauses and the prohibition of fluidity pledges in pre-maturity agreements.