建设工程分包合同中“付款背靠背条款”的法律研究

A Legal Study on “Pay-When-Paid Clauses” in Construction Subcontracts

摘要: 在建设工程分包合同中，付款背靠背条款大量存在，现行法律规范未对其作出明确定义，其仅为建设工程领域实践中的习惯性表达，核心是承包人向分包人的付款以发包人向承包人的付款为前提。关于此条款的性质，主流观点是附条件说，将发包人的付款看作一个不确定发生的事实。关于此条款的效力，出台的《关于大型企业与中小型企业约定以第三方支付款项为付款前提条款效力问题的批复》认为大型企业与中小企业之间签订的此条款无效。本文认为该条款的性质既不是附条件也不是附期限，实质上是承包人与分包人对付款义务履行期限的一种特殊约定。本文认为认定该条款的效力应当采取二分法，对于大型企业与中小型企业之间的条款应当根据《关于大型企业与中小型企业约定以第三方支付款项为付款前提条款效力问题的批复》认定无效，对于大型企业之间以及中小型企业之间的约定的付款背靠背条款应当基于意思自治，认定原则上是有效的，例外存在一些不能以此抗辩的情形。本文提出“司法裁判”与“事前防范”的双重规制路径，一方面在承包人未履行自身义务、承包人未积极向发包人主张权利、发包人破产等情形下，为了保护分包人的利益，承包人不能以此条款主张抗辩。当出现发包人付款不能的情况下，应当看作是对合同内容的约定不明，此时则要根据民法典第511条处理。另一方面，在合同的订立阶段，承包人和分包人都要采取措施尽量降低付款背靠背条款带来的风险。

Abstract: In construction project subcontracting contracts, back-to-back payment clauses are widely prevalent. Current legal regulations do not provide a clear definition for them, as they are merely habitual expressions in the construction industry, with the core principle being that the contractor’s payment to the subcontractor is contingent upon the employer’s payment to the contractor. Regarding the nature of such clauses, the prevailing view is the conditional theory, treating the employer's payment as an uncertain factual occurrence. On the issue of validity, the Reply on the Effectiveness of Clauses Where Payment to Subcontractors is Conditioned on Third-Party Payments by Large Enterprises to Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the Reply) holds that such clauses between large enterprises and SMEs are invalid. This article argues that the nature of these clauses is neither conditional nor time-bound but rather a special agreement between the contractor and subcontractor on the fulfillment period of payment obligations. It proposes a dichotomous approach to determining validity: clauses between large enterprises and SMEs should be deemed invalid in accordance with the Reply, while back-to-back payment clauses between large enterprises or between SMEs should be recognized as valid in principle, with exceptions where certain defenses are not permissible. The article advocates a dual regulatory approach of “judicial adjudication” and “pre-contractual prevention”. On the one hand, to protect subcontractors’ interests, contractors cannot invoke such clauses for defense in cases where they fail to fulfill their own obligations, do not actively claim rights from the employer, or the employer goes bankrupt. If the employer fails to make payments, it should be treated as an ambiguous contractual term, and the matter should be resolved under Article 511 of the Civil Code. On the other hand, during the contract formation stage, both contractors and subcontractors must take measures to mitigate the risks associated with back-to-back payment clauses.