Study On The The Ownership Of The Result Of Creditor's Right Of Revocation

In regard to the exercise of the creditor's right of revocation,Article 74 of the Contract Law of China has made clear provisions.However,in the vesting of the right to revoke the right,the legal and judicial interpretations are not mentioned,so that the validity of the right of revoke is undetermined.Although the academic circles have said that they have adopted the rules of the library,they have adhered to the theory of traditional civil law as the right of revocation of the contractual preservation measures with the subrogation right in the case that the judicial interpretation of China has clearly defined the priority of subrogation.Unwilling to change in time,some scholars have a lot of whispers.Judging from the judicial practice,it also dampened the enthusiasm of creditors to exercise the right of revocation,and objectively curbed the implementation of the system.It is worth noting that Article 331 of the Civil Code and Contracts(Revision)re-states the system of revocation,stipulating that the creditor requests the people's court to cancel the debtor's behavior,and at the same time,in accordance with the law,the debtor is acting in his own name.The right to the opposite person after being revoked.The author believes that this provision reflects the recognition of the priority compensation rules in the latest legislative developments.However,it is difficult to do this in the existing legal norms,so it is necessary to seek reasonable argumentation results through legal interpretation.The determination of the vesting rights of the creditor's right of revocation shall be based on the nature of the right to revoke.Only in this way can we get an idea for the full text.As far as this article is concerned,the nature of the right of revocation is stated in the fold,that is,the right of revocation has both the power of formation and the right of claim.In the middle of the compromise,the creditor can claim the beneficiary as a payment according to his request right.At this time,it is related to whether he can give priority to the property to be paid.The warehousing rules and the priority compensation rules have different attitudes and have their own advantages and disadvantages.Although the warehousing rules have the value of fairness and formal rationality,they are inevitably lost in the void,making the legislative purpose of the right of revocation gradually emptied into empty talk,and it is not long in terms of substantial benefits.Therefore,the two-phase choice,when the priority compensation rules for the square and practice.Although the priority compensation rules are not fair to the outcome of all creditors,the creditor who exercises the right of revocation is given priority over other creditors by the legal value of the opportunity,and the claim for revocation is reimbursed.And other creditors also urged them to actively exercise their rights and safeguard their rights and interests.And it pays attention to the efficiency of litigation,and it is also consistent with the concept of fair opportunity.Although it is somewhat neglected from the formal rules in terms of formal rationality,it is also quite valuable in terms of value pursuit.Therefore,if appropriate explanation and adjustment are given,priority will be paid.The rules will definitely benefit the construction of the rule of law.The creditor's property interests obtained by revoking the lawsuit will be given priority,and the legal basis is in Article 20 of the Interpretation of Contract Law(1).According to the discount,the revocation of the lawsuit actually includes the revocation of the creditor's request for revocation of the fraud and the subrogation of the third party's return of the property.And the right to request the beneficiary to return the property originally belongs to the debtor,so the creditor has the right to exercise the rights of the debtor.Therefore,it is quite reasonable for creditors to be given priority in accordance with the provisions of this article.The nature of the effect of the right of revocation should be the legal transfer of creditor's rights and debts,that is,the effect of the debtor's claim on the third party's creditor's right to the creditor after the revocation of the revocation of the litigation initiated by the creditor,and at the same time,the creditor abandons the claim.,the debtor's corresponding debt is waived.In this way,the corresponding creditor-debtor relationship between the creditor and the debtor and the debtor and the third party is eliminated.However,the debtor must pay off the guarantee responsibility for the transfer of its own creditor's rights,so that the creditor can pay for his own creditor's rights without the actual liquidation or liquidation of the third party.Of course,if the creditor only requests the cancellation of the debtor's behavior and does not require the third party to return the property interest,the court may also explain it to the parties.The result of the creditor's exercise of the right of revocation and the fact that it is entitled to priority compensation.Only the external effect is quite public.Under normal circumstances,the creditor can only claim compensation from the transferee and has no right to exercise the right to request the transferee.For the debtor,as far as the "human aspect" is concerned,the res judicata of the revocation of the litigation judgment is absolutely effective.But in terms of property,the implementation should be relatively effective.