從經濟的觀點論信用加強法制 ─以保證、信用狀、保證保險及信用衍生商品為例

Abstract

信用加強是個耳熟能詳的名詞，簡言之就是加強信用，然如更精確的加以描述，信用加強指當債權人面臨各種風險而辨識為信用風險時，估算信用風險發行之機率，衡量可能的損失，依其分析所採取各種降低信用風險對策之過程。因此，舉凡信用風險之辨識、評估分析、乃至處理對策，此一系列以降低信用風險為目的之措施，均包括於信用加強機制之概念內。如以信用風險之移轉為中心，探討由第三人(信用加強者)介入之外部信用加強機制，除以債權人之觀點為主軸外，並應由債務人及信用加強者之角度出發，以經濟分析之方式衡量交易中之「時間價值成本」、「流動化之邊際成本」、「調查監控之邊際成本」與「違約損失之邊際成本」，探究促成三方關係之誘因。而「調查監控之邊際成本」與「違約損失之邊際成本」，可謂其中之關鍵。 三方關係之信用加強機制中，保證乃由債權人、債務人、保證人共同架構，我國法之保證以「從屬性」、「補充性」、「代負責任」為其核心特質；美國則由保證法整編─Restatement (Third) of the Law of Suretyship and Guaranty規範保證，並將保證區分為Surety及Guaranty；國際上則有URCG、URDG、ISP98等慣例以資適用。商業信用狀由出口商、進口商、銀行參與，並以UCP500為適用之法規，核心特質為「主義務人」、「獨立性」、「文義性」。擔保信用狀則由受益人、申請人、銀行共同架構，除適用部分UCP500之規定外，亦可選擇適用URDG或ISP98，以「獨立性」、「文義性」與「形式上之主義務人」為核心特質。保證保險由債權人(被保險人)、債務人(要保人)、保證保險人構成，而其核心特質在於「債務人不履行債務為保險事故」、「保證保險關係與基礎關係分離」、「填補損害」。信用違約交換則由信用保護買方、參考實體、信用保護賣方參與，惟參考實體與信用保護賣方並無任何關連，且具有可交易性，故「兩方關係」及「標準化」為其核心特質。 此些核心特質雖個別架構了各種信用加強機制，然其所反映的法律規範，卻存在某程度的關連，如以債權人為請求，到信用加強者為付款，最後回歸信用加強者之求償此信用加強機制運作的流程為基礎，即可歸納出信用加強機制的三個面向：「債權人請求對象之適格」、「信用加強者履約之條件」、「信用加強者求償之可能性」。而此三個面向一方面可用以檢視所有信用加強機制，比較各機制制度上的優劣，使市場參與者依其重視之面向，選擇其具有優勢之信用加強機制，例如我國法之保證無論在何種面向，皆有利於信用加強者而不利於債權人或債務人；另一方面亦有助於釐清「主債務人」之概念，並使「拋棄先訴抗辯之保證」、「連帶保證」與「連帶債務」、「不真正連帶債務」間之困擾，獲得合理的解決。 雖各信用加強機制皆有其核心特質，看似壁壘分明，然而，無論在法律制度的配套上、法律實務的解釋上、市場參與者的對策上，皆使各信用加強機制間的界線不再涇渭分明。如於「債權人請求對象之適格」，藉由先訴抗辯之拋棄及連帶保證，保證往信用狀趨近；於「信用加強者之抗辯強度」，美國法允許抗辯之放棄，而我國藉由實務對銀行保證的肯認，亦使保證往信用狀靠攏，而詐欺之認定或可撤銷之信用狀，相對的亦使信用狀往保證趨近；於「權利證明之要求度」，美國法允許交互訴訟程序，而我國可藉由課與通知義務及單據的要求，使信用狀往保證趨近，而銀行保證及公證法逕受強制執行之運用，相對的亦使保證往信用狀靠攏。於是，各信用加強機制間之藩籬，似非牢不可破。 因此，在制度設計上之分際產生模糊之情況下，重新以市場參與者之需求，檢視法規範之妥當性，如民法第739條之1的規定，並審慎思考法規範區隔各信用加強機制之必要性，將焦點回歸市場機制運作下各信用加強機制之優劣，如費用、應為信用加強之範圍、應提擔保品之成數、信用加強者監督之效能、信用加強之期間、信用替代之效果，以商業實務之思維，經濟的觀點出發，相信始符合市場參與者真正的期待。

Credit enhancement, in other words, means enhancing debtor’s credit. Describing it more precisely, credit enhancement is a procedure which creditor identifies, analyzes, and manages the credit risk through risk avoidance, prevention, reduction, isolation or transfer. These series of measures to mitigate credit risk are all comprised in the conception of credit enhancement mechanism. Focus on credit enhancement provided by external parties, it is triggered by the need of creditor, but it is feasible only when the debtor and credit enhancer both benefit from it. Therefore, through economic analysis, credit enhancer must help lower transaction cost, which is composed mainly by time value cost, marginal cost of liquidity, marginal cost of monitoring, and marginal cost of default, to benefit himself and the debtor. Thus, from the economic perspectives, credit enhancement is structured by the creditor who specializes in obtaining loanable funds, the credit enhancer who holds a sufficiently great comparative advantage in monitoring and collection, and the debtor who is willing to maintain this three-party credit transaction for profit inducement. Guaranties, surety, letters of credit, insurances, and swaps are all credit enhancement mechanisms. Guaranty is conditional, subordinate, ancillary and guarantor is secondary obligator. Surety is jointly and severally liable. They are both governed by Civil Code in Taiwan, Restatement (Third) of the Law of Suretyship and Guaranty in the U.S., and URCG, URDG, ISP98 in global transactions. Commercial letter of credit which governed by UCP500 is independent, documentary and primary liable. Standby letter of credit is also independent and documentary, but its obligation is primary in form and secondary in intent. Parties could choose UCP500, URDG, or ISP98 as governing law. Bonding Insurance is governed by Insurance Act in Taiwan. Insurer’s obligation which arises from insurance contract and is independent of the underlying contract is to indemnify the insured for loss incurred through non-performance of obligations by its debtors. Credit default swap is one kind of credit derivatives and does not have an available body of law. The characteristic of credit default swap is that its positions are tradable. Among theses different credit enhancement mechanisms, there are still some connections could be generalized. Based on the processes of credit enhancement ─creditor claims, credit enhancer performs and then seeks indemnity, three dimensions─”to whom and in what condition the creditor could claim,” “in what condition credit enhancer’s performance is legitimate,” and “who is ultimately responsible for the debt” are helpful not only in reconsidering the law of credit enhancement and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of these mechanisms, but also in clarifying the conception of “Primary Obligator,” and the misleading between “Joint-Debtors” and “Joint-Guarantors.” Although distinctions can be draw among these mechanisms, complementary measures designed by the law, comment by the court, and the countermeasures by the market participants, blur the rigid borders. By taking joint-liability, guaranty is moving toward letter of credit in the dimension of ”to whom and in what condition the creditor could claim;” by waiver of defense in the U.S., the affirmation of “Bank Guaranty,” and using direct compulsory execution provided in article 13 of the Public Notarization Act in Taiwan, guaranty is also moving toward letter of credit in the dimension of “in what condition credit enhancer’s performance is legitimate;” by the recognition of fraud exception, using revocable letter of credit, and increasing document requirements, letter of credit is moving toward guaranty in this dimension too. Therefore, there are still some borderlands existing on the borders. In conclusion, facing the interaction of these different mechanisms, reconsidering the law of credit enhancement, such as the legitimacy of article 739-1 of the Civil Code, by referring to what market participants need, and re-examining the true reasons distinguish these same-function mechanisms are necessary. Only by returning to the market mechanism, and thinking from the viewpoint of business practice can the law of credit enhancement conforms to the expectations of market participants