Zhu Jingjing
Since the enactment of the Civil Code, the creditor’s right of revocation in China has undergone significant development and has become increasingly refined. However, in practical application, issues persist regarding the lack of consensus on the relationship between the creditor’s right of revocation and the application of malicious collusion rules, the ambiguity in standards for determining the fraudulent nature of the debtor’s actions, and the incomplete realization of the legal effects of the creditor’s right of revocation. These issues can be addressed through a three-tiered structure of ‘norm selection, constituent elements, and legal effect realization’. In norm selection, the focus should shift from substantive law to procedural law. Malicious collusion should be positioned as a defense that courts may invoke ex officio. It should be clearly established that the procedural application of the creditor’s right of revocation follows malicious collusion in order of precedence. In terms of constituent elements, a dual standard should be adopted to assess the fraudulent nature of the debtor’s actions. This standard should specifically address the determination of fraudulence at the time the debtor’s actions are undertaken and at the time the creditor exercises their rights. In terms of legal effect realization, on the one hand, creditors should be granted the right to request the return of property from the counterparty and to apply for enforcement against the counterparty; on the other hand, in specific circumstances, the counterparty should be imposed with a notice obligation, requiring them to notify the creditor when returning property to the debtor.
内容提要 民法典时代的中国债权人撤销权在经历一系列发展后已经日趋完善。但在具体适用过程中，仍然存在与恶意串通规则适用关系的争议频发，债务人行为诈害性的判断标准模糊以及债权人撤销权法律效果未能完全落实的问题。对于这些问题，可从“规范选择—要件证成—法效实现”的三层结构中进行一一回应。在规范选择层面，应从实体法转向程序法，将恶意串通归入法院可依职权适用的抗辩范畴，明确债权人撤销权在程序适用上的后置性。在要件证成层面，应对债务人行为的诈害性设立双重判断标准，分别对应于债务人行为时的诈害性和债权人行权时的诈害性。在法效实现层面，一方面应赋予债权人请求相对人返还和对相对人申请执行的权利；另一方面应在特定情形对相对人课加通知义务，要求其在向债务人进行返还时应通知债权人。