A Systematic Analysis of Multiple Assignments of a Claim

债权转让指的是当事人之间达成合意从而发生债权移转的行为。但是由于债权没有实体交付的凭证，属于无形的权利，因此存在多重转让的可能性，也即债权人将同一债权同时转让给两个或者两个以上的受让人。我国《民法典》并没有对债权多重转让做出一般性的规定，仅仅在第768条对保理合同中的应收账款债权多重转让做出了规定，确立了登记优先、通知次之的规定。并在《担保制度司法解释》第66条中对普通债权转让和应收账款债权转让共存时的适用规则做出了规定，指出参照适用《民法典》第768条，但是对于此规定学界仍然存在争议，对于其是否需要同时满足“存在保理、应收账款质押和债权转让”的条件，还是满足其中之二即可，仍然没有定论。《民法典合同编通则司法解释》(以下简称《合同编通则解释》)第50条间接确立了在一般债权多重转让中，最先通知的受让人优先受偿的规则，同时为了保护交易安全，对通知的形式作出了特别规定。但是其第一款第二句存在逻辑上解释的难题，甚至与《民法典》第502、568条存在逻辑上的冲突。此外，在应收账款债权多重转让的情境下，《民法典》第768条与《合同编通则解释》第50条的适用，基于体系化分析，优先登记的受让人无疑可以成为最优先的受让人，但是债务人对于最先通知的受让人的清偿仍然可以构成有效清偿，但最先通知的受让人不具有对抗最先登记的受让人的权利。Creditor assignment refers to the transfer of a claim from one party to another through mutual agreement. However, since a claim is an intangible right without a physical instrument for delivery, there is a possibility of multiple assignments, where a creditor transfers the same claim to two or more assignees simultaneously. China’s Civil Code does not provide general rules for multiple claims assignments but addresses the issue of multiple accounts receivable in the context of factoring contracts under Article 768, which prioritizes registration over notification. Additionally, the Judicial Interpretation on Guarantee Institutions (Article 66) specifies the application rules when ordinary creditor assignments and accounts receivable assignments coexist, stating that the provisions of Article 768 of the Civil Code should be referred to. However, there is still scholarly debate over whether this rule requires all three conditions (factoring, accounts receivable pledge, and creditor assignment) to be met or only two of them. The Judicial Interpretation on General Provisions of the Contract Chapter of the Civil Code (Article 50) indirectly establishes a rule that, in cases of multiple assignments of ordinary claims, the assignee who first notifies the debtor has priority in repayment. To safeguard transactions, the interpretation also imposes specific formal requirements for notification. However, the second sentence of the first paragraph of this article raises logical interpretive challenges and conflicts with Article 502 and Article 568 of the Civil Code. In the context of multiple accounts receivable assignments, a systematic analysis suggests that the assignee who registers first is the most prioritized. However, the debtor’s repayment to the assignee who first notified them remains a valid discharge, even though the notifying assignee cannot assert priority over the assignee who registered first.