增信措施担保化的反思与重构——基于我国司法裁判的实证研究

我国司法实践中关于差额补足、流动性支持等增信措施有保证合同说、无名合同说、债务加入说和对赌协议说四种学说构造。从《民法典担保制度解释》第36条的上下文看,该条文的内容有可能导致司法实践中将增信措施解释为保证合同。但增信措施的运用领域复杂多样,应根据其交易结构、交易习惯和行为目的进行意思表示解释。在结构化金融和信托管理计划中使用增信措施,并不存在被担保的主债权,不需要按照保证合同解释。资产管理业务中的增信措施起到合法的保底作用,也不宜解释为保证合同。即使在一般的金融交易领域,增信措施有避免担保被计入企业财务报告、上市公司信息披露、保证合同各项限制性规则等意义,于此应尊重当事人的意思自治,将增信措施解释为独立的无名合同。如果增信措施的保证意思表示明显,则当然要适用保证的规则。如果增信措施被解释为无名合同而非保证,也可以考虑类推适用保证合同的规则,包括保证合同主体资格的限制、保证合同的书面形式、公司对外担保的决议,以及保证中的债权转让或债务人变更的后果等规则。但是,关于保证的从属性、保证责任范围、一般保证推定、保证期间、保证人援引主债务人抗辩事由等规则,不宜类推适用。

Reflection and Reinterpretation of Credit Enhancement:Based on the Positive Study of Chinese Judicial Judgment

In the judicial practice of China,there are four theories which attempt to interpret the essence of credit enhancements,including Suretyship Contract,Innominate Contract,Debt Joining and Valuation Adjustment Mechanism.From the context of Article 36 of Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court of the Application of the Relevant Guarantee System of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China,it is easy to interpret credit enhancements as suretyship contract which is misleading in judicial practice.In fact,the applicable occasion of credit enhancements is so complex and diverse that it should be interpreted according to its transaction structure,transaction habits and legal transaction’s purposes.There is no guaranteed principal credit when the credit enhancements are used in structured finance and trust management schemes,so that it does not need to be interpreted in accordance with the suretyship contract.Meanwhile the credit enhancements play a lawful and minimum guaranteed function in asset management business and should not be interpreted as a suretyship contract either.Even though in the field of general financial transactions,the credit enhancements have the significance of avoiding guarantee from being included in corporate financial reports,information disclosure of listed companies,and various restrictive rules of suretyship contract,in order to respect the autonomy of the parties concerned,it should be interpreted as an independent innominate contract rather than others.If the credit enhancements express the meaning of surefyship obviously,it should directly apply the rules of suretyship.Correspondingly,if the credit enhancements are interpreted as innominate contract rather than suretyship,some rules of suretyship contract could be applied possibly according to analogy application,such as the rules of limitation of subject qualification,the written form requirements,the resolution of external guarantee of the company,the consequences of the assignment of credit or modification of debtor in guarantee and so on.However,it isn’t appropriate to apply some rules by analogy such as the subordination of suretyship,the scope of suretyship liability,the ordinary suretyship presumption,the prescription of suretyship,and the defense of the principal debtor invoked by the surety.