论债权人撤销权判决的实现路径——以指导案例118号为中心

获得胜诉判决不是债权人行使撤销权的终点,债务人的责任财产实际恢复,才能有效保全债权。最高人民法院指导案例118号从执行程序角度给出了撤销权判决实现的方案,但未完全解决问题。债权人撤销权判决有两种类型,一为形成判决,一为形成判决与给付判决之复合,后者包含返还财产的给付内容,借助执行程序才能使被转移的财产回归债务人的责任财产。主债权可以强制执行时,因撤销权判决能回复物权,债权人可直接执行被转移的财产清偿债权,一体实现保全债权和清偿债权,但这一简便路径不适用于返还标的为金钱的案件。更简化的“执行脱逸财产”方案缺乏正当性。主债权不能强制执行时,撤销权判决应通过独立的执行程序实现,该指导案例就此确立的执行当事人规则完全正确。“撤销权与代位权同时行使”的方案忽视了执行程序对于撤销权行使的意义,没有必要性和可行性。

On the Approach of Realizing the Judgment in Favor of the Creditor's Right of Revocation--Centered on Instructive Case No.118

Obtaining a favorable judgment is not the end for the creditor to exercise the right of revocation.Only when the debtor's property under liability is factually restored,can the creditor's right be effectively protected.Instructive Case No.118 provides a scheme for realizing the judgment in favor of the right of revocation from the perspective of execution procedures,but it does not completely solve the problem.There are two basic types of judgment in favor of the creditor's right of revocation:one is the judgment on changing legal relation,and the other is a mixture of judgment on changing legal relation and judgment of performance.The latter includes the performing content of returning property,and the transferred property can be only returned with the help of execution procedures.When the main obligatory right can be executed compulsorily,because the judgment in favor of the right of revocation can restore the obligator's real right,the creditor can directly execute the transferred property to pay off the creditor's right,thus realizing the preservation and discharge of the creditor's right at the same time.However,this simple approach is not suitable for cases where the subject matter to be returned is money.The more simplified scheme of"executing transferred property"lacks legitimacy.When the main obligatory right cannot be executed compulsorily,the judgment in favor of the right of revocation should be realized through an independent execution procedure,and the rules on the parties to the execution established by the instructive case are completely correct.The scheme of"simultaneous exercise of the right of revocation and the right of subrogation"ignores the significance of the execution procedure on the exercise of the right of revocation,so it is not necessary and feasible.