论以物抵债的类型划分与裁判路径

On the Classification of Debt-for-Asset Settlements and Its Adjudication Paths

摘要: 在我国民商事审判实务中，以物抵债交易形态纷繁复杂。由于此类协议缔约场景多样、外在交易形式高度重合、当事人真实意思表示常约定简略、模糊不清等问题，致使司法实践长期面临法律关系定性模糊、类型边界难以厘清、裁判标准不统一的适用难题。事实上，以物抵债并非单一、固定的民事法律行为，根据协议订立时间点、债务履行安排以及当事人真实债权处置合意的不同，可以将其细分为新债清偿、债务更新、让与担保与买卖型担保四类典型形态。不同类型的以物抵债，在合同从属性判断、流质禁止规则适用、物权变动效力、新旧债权存续状态以及当事人救济途径等方面均存在着实质性的差异。但司法裁判过往多依赖单一要件进行片面判断，缺乏了层次化、递进式的类型识别思维，致使同类案件裁判结论分歧较大，同案不同判的问题突出。通过归纳近年来民法学界的主流研究观点，本文进一步细化并完善了以物抵债的三阶梯递进式——“三看”的识别方法。为以物抵债的类型甄别提供了层次清晰、可落地式的裁判思路。具体而言，裁判者认定抵债法律关系时应当依次考量三项核心要素：首先依据的是协议缔约的时间点是处于债务履行期届满前还是后，以此来区分抵债行为究竟属于担保属性抑或是清偿属性；其次是针对债务到期前订立的抵债协议，通过根据合同是否约定优先清偿原债务的履行顺位，从而进一步甄别典型担保与买卖型担保；最后针对债务到期后达成的抵债合意，以当事人是否作出终止原有债权债务的明确意思表示，界分债务更新与新债清偿。基于上述的“三看”法，本文结合我国学者的主流学理观点，依托我国民法典及担保制度司法解释的规范框架，从四个维度系统梳理以物抵债的类型边界、适用规则与司法认定标准。通过厘清四类抵债形态的制度差异，来回应司法实践中的定性疑难问题，并针对性提出了裁判适用方面的完善建议，旨在统一以物抵债纠纷的类型识别尺度，继而化解司法裁判中存在的分歧。

Abstract: In China’s civil and commercial trial practice, debt-for-asset swaps take a wide variety of forms. Due to diverse contracting scenarios for such agreements, highly similar superficial transaction structures, and often sketchy or ambiguous stipulations concerning parties’ real intentions, judicial practice has long been plagued by difficulties including vague characterization of legal relationships, blurred type boundaries, and inconsistent adjudicative criteria. In fact, a debt-for-asset swap is not a single, static civil juristic act. It may be subdivided into four typical categories—novation of new obligation, novation of debt, security by transfer, and sale-styled security—depending on when the agreement is concluded, arrangements for debt performance, and the parties’ genuine consensus on the disposition of claims. Substantial distinctions exist among these four types of swaps with respect to the assessment of accessory nature of contracts, application of prohibitions on fluid forfeiture, effects of real right alteration, survival of old and new claims, and remedial avenues available to parties. Nevertheless, past judicial decisions often relied on one-sided assessments based on a single element, lacking a tiered, progressive framework for type identification. This has given rise to widely divergent rulings in comparable cases, and the problem of inconsistent judgments for analogous cases remains salient. Drawing on mainstream viewpoints in civil law scholarship from recent years, this article refines and develops a three-tier progressive identification method termed the “Three-Step Test”, offering a clearly structured, workable adjudicative framework for classifying debt-for-asset swaps. Specifically, adjudicators evaluating a debt-for-asset legal relationship shall consider three core elements in sequence. First, they shall determine whether the agreement was concluded before or after the maturity of the debt obligation, so as to distinguish security-oriented swaps from discharge-oriented swaps. Second, for agreements concluded prior to debt maturity, judges shall differentiate between typical security arrangements and sale-styled security by checking whether the contract stipulates a performance priority for satisfying the original debt. Third, for swap agreements reached after debt maturity, the boundary between novation of a new obligation and novation of debt turns on whether the parties have explicitly agreed to terminate the original claim-debt relationship. Building upon the Three-Step Test, this article combines the mainstream doctrinal views of Chinese scholars, applicable rules and judicial recognition criteria for debt-for-asset swaps from four dimensions, within the normative framework of China’s Civil Code and the Judicial Interpretation on Security System. By clarifying institutional disparities among the four swap categories, this paper addresses characterization conundrums in judicial practice and puts forward targeted proposals to refine adjudicative applications. It aims to unify standards for identifying swap types in dispute resolution and thereby mitigate divergences in judicial rulings.