%0 Journal Article
%T 《民法典》第401条、第428条评注<br> Commentary on Articles 401 and 428 of the “Civil Code”
%A 周然
%J Dispute Settlement
%P 30-34
%@ 2379-3104
%D 2024
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/DS.2024.101005
%X 关于流押、流质约款效力的争论伴随着《民法典》起草的全过程，《民法典》生效后，对流押、流质约款的法律规制突破了一贯的绝对禁止主义，不仅法律条文表述发生变化，还增加了优先受偿权。传统观点中流押、流质约款的效力与担保物权的效力相悖，立法通过缓和的禁止主义，将流押、流质约款纳入担保体系，从而平衡双方当事人的利益，节约司法资源。同时，亦应允许约定清算义务之流押、流质约款。<br />
The debate about the validity of the fluidity security contract accompanied the whole process of drafting the “Civil Code”. After the “Civil Code” came into effect, the legal regulation of the fluidity security contract broke through the consistent absolute prohibition, not only the expression of the legal provisions changed, but also increased the priority of compensation. In the traditional view, the effectiveness of the fluidity security contract is contrary to that of the real right of security. The legislation includes the fluidity security contract into the security system through the mild prohibitionism, so as to balance the interests of both parties and save judicial resources. At the same time, a fluidity security contract with liquidation obligations should also be allowed.
%K 流担保，担保物权，清算义务，从属性<br> Fluidity Security
%K Security Interest
%K Liquidation Obligations
%K Dependency
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78687