A Study On The Effectiveness Of Debt-in-reimbursement Agreement

In judicial practice,there are all kinds of disputes about the agreement of paying debts in kind.There is no uniform standard for the court to determine the validity of the agreement when dealing with relevant cases.The vacancy of legal provisions leads to the emergence of different judgments in the same case.Substitution system can not be completely equated with paying debts in real terms,especially on the identification of the nature and validity of the agreement on paying debts in real terms.According to the constituent elements of the agreement,whether the ownership of the transferred property needs to be transferred or not,it can be divided into promissory agreement and material agreement.A promissory agreement to pay debts in real terms only requires agreement between the parties,while a material agreement to pay debts in real terms requires the transfer of ownership of the debts,which is the same as that of the traditional system of paying off debts in real terms.The connotation of paying off debts in kind is far beyond the system of paying off debts in lieu of things,or it is only a form of paying off debts in lieu of things.Debt-in-kind agreement should be divided into narrow agreement and broad agreement.Its extension should include the settlement of substitute,the modification of debt,the settlement of new debt and the guarantee of transfer,etc.Generally speaking,the agreement of the relationship between existence and debt is debt-in-kind agreement.In a narrow sense,debt-in-kind agreement should be a legal agreement between creditors and debtors to replace the original payment with other kinds of payment so that the original debt can be eliminated.The agreement of debt in rem is not guaranteed,so the liquidity contract should not be used to deny the validity of the agreement of debt in rem.In theory,it is more in line with the jurisprudence that the promissory nature takes the agreement of repayment of debts in rem,and the effective of the agreement of repayment of debts in rem does not take the change of real right as the essential condition.Property Rights Act and creditor's Rights Act should be treated separately.Debt-paying property is the effect of real rights change of debt-paying property only after the completion of delivery.At the same time,debts are attributed to elimination.Debt-paying property is immovable property,and the effect of debt-paying can be achieved only by registering relevant property rights transfer.The validity of debt-in-property agreement should pay attention to the value of legal benefits hidden behind its legal acts.The court should not apply the provisions of the liquidity contract to deny its legal effect.On the premise of recognizing it as a promissory contract and an anonymous contract,this paper proposes from the perspective of promoting transactions,improving the efficiency of judicial dispute resolution,and enhancing theproperty value of the property as a diversified way of debt performance.To maximize respect for the freedom of will of the parties.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper consists of four parts.In the first part,through a case,we introduce the concepts of debt-in-kind agreement,such as the settlement of substitute,the liquidity contract,the modification of debt,the settlement of new debt and the guarantee of transfer,in order to further clarify the relationship between them.Debt-in-kind agreements should be divided into narrow agreement and broad agreement.Their extensions include the settlement of substitute,the change of debt,the settlement of new debt and the guarantee of transfer,etc.Generally speaking,the existing agreements or the agreements of the relationship between real right and debt are all debt-in-kind agreements.Debt-in-kind covers too many cases of agreement.It is unscientific to blindly deny its legal effect or simply equate it with a similar concept based on the existing legal provisions and the specific analysis of legal theory in the specific legal relationship.In addition,the nature of the agreement is discussed.The agreement belongs to an anonymous contract,which has reasons.Its fundamental purpose is to offset the original debt,and the promissory nature is the fundamental attribute of the agreement.The second part mainly introduces the validity of debt-in-kind agreement in judicial practice.Among them,in judicial practice,the main problems in the validity determination of debt-in-kind agreement are vague in nature,and the validity determination is not uniform.The fundamental reason lies in the vacancy of legal provisions;there are a large number of debt-in-kind agreements in the execution procedure in the way of implementing settlement agreements,which are used to solve the problems of difficult execution.The third part is mainly from the point of view of property law to analyze the debt-in-property agreement.The content of the agreement includes not only the legal relationship between creditor's rights and debts,but also the act of real right.The ultimate purpose of the agreement is to cancel debts.The agreement of repayment of debts in rem has no guarantee attribute and there is no guarantee relationship in the agreement.Therefore,it does not violate the provisions of the law of real rights for security,and should not negate its effectiveness with a liquidity contract.Debt-paying property should conform to the provisions of the Property Law.The validity of the agreement does not depend on the change of the property right of the debt-paying property as an important element.The nature of promise is the basic characteristic of the agreement.The fourth part mainly considers the validity of debt-in-kind agreement from the benefit and value of law.The negation of the validity of the agreement is mainly based on the liquidity contract.The legal prohibition of the liquidity contract is to achieve the expected fair value.The liquidity contract should not be rigidly used to negate itseffectiveness.As an inevitable phenomenon in practice,the agreement of payment in remuneration has its value and significance.It is affirmed that the legal effect of debt-in-property agreement and respect for the autonomy of civil subjects can improve the efficiency of judicial dispute resolution,enhance the property value of property and promote transactions,which is a diversified way of debt performance.