| 摘要: |
| 我国通说就现金货币所采“占有即所有”规则，实为无意义的形式主义之举，回归动产物权变动规则，肯定货币所有权人享有原物返还请求权，亦可达到相同的法律效果。但原物返还请求权说与“占有即所有”规则相同，会导致货币所有权降格为债权，有失公允。货币所有权实为价值所有权，只要货币价值具有特定性，返还请求权人应享有物权性价值返还请求权。与现金货币相同，存款货币实为存款人对银行享有的债权，故沿用现金货币思路的原物返还请求权说、物权性价值返还请求权说并无适用空间，基于公平理念赋予不当得利返还请求权优先地位的债权性价值追迹说完全是一种立法政策考量而非法律逻辑推理的结果。存款债权所有说基于债权的归属特征认定系争存款债权归返还请求权人“所有”从而使其享有对抗第三人的实体权利，不仅符合民法的内在体系和金融机构支付结算规则，也符合朴素的公平观念。 |
| 关键词: 货币 占有即所有 原物返还请求权 价值返还请求权 优先受偿权 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金一般项目“民法典视野下货币权利流转规则问题研究”（项目编号： 22BFX068） |
|
| Rethinking and Restatement： The Rule of Claim for Restitution of Money — With Special Reference to Cases of Fraudulent Transfers to Satisfy Debts |
|
Qi Muti
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| In Chinese jurisprudence, the prevailing doctrine for cash currency endorses the rule that “possession that is all”, yet this is but a meaningless formalistic dogma; reverting to the rules of real right change of movable property, affirming the owner's claim for restitution of original object would achieve equivalent legal effect. However, the “Claim for Restitution of Original Object” theory, premised on physical specificity, like the “possession that is all” rule, would also relegate monetary ownership to mere claims, which is manifestly inequitable. Monetary ownership is substantively value ownership, so long as monetary value retains specificity, the claimant defrauded of funds shall be entitled proprietary claim for value restitution. Like cash currency, while deposit serves payment and settlement functions, it is substantively a creditor's right against the bank；consequently, theories of “Claim for Restitution of Original Object” and “Proprietary Claim for Value Restitution”, which transplant doctrinal frameworks developed for cash currency find no application here. The “Creditor's Value Tracing” theory, which prioritizes unjust enrichment claims based on equitable principles, is entirely a product of legislative policy choices rather than legal logic deduction. The “Deposit Claim Ownership” theory, grounded in the attributive nature of creditor's rights, recognizes the claimant defrauded of funds as the “owner” of the disputed deposit claim, thereby conferring the claimant defrauded of funds substantive rights against third parties; it not only aligns with the coherence of civil law systems and the rules for payment and settlement by financial institutions, but also conforms to equitable principles that “never permit appropriation of others' property” and “never anticipate debt repayment with third-party assets”.
Keywords |
| Key words: Money, “Possession That is All”, Claim for Restitution of Original Object, Claim for Restitution of Value, Priority of Payment |
