我国合同法第74条债权人撤销权与第52条第2项合同无效制度,在债权保护上有一定的功能同向性。但就规范构成而言,二者在债权人方面、债务人客观行为与主观方面、债务人行为相对人方面的要件均有不同,不易出现规范交叉。尤其是,二者在债务人及其相对人主观要件与举证规则的要求,亦可发挥分流作用,减少竞合现象的出现。即便确实出现适用交错的场合,比如特定第三人的金钱债权遭受债务人恶意串通行为诈害之时,基于体系解释、规范意旨探求及法律效果整合角度的考量,亦应当认定合同法第52条第2项具有优先适用地位,而非允许在两者中自由选择。合同法第52条第2项的规范设置未尽合理,但解释论仍然有助于其在实务中的妥善适用,而立法论则可为将来的修法、立法提供指引。 China’s contract law Article 74 of the creditor’s right of revocation and Article 52, paragraph 2 contract invalid system, there is a certain degree of functional co-directional protection of claims. However, as far as the normative structure is concerned, both the obligee and the creditor have different requirements in respect of the objective behavior of the debtor and the subjective aspects as well as the relative aspects of the debtor’s behavior. In particular, they can also play a diversionary role in alleviating the phenomenon of co-opertion as required by the subjective requirements and proofs of the debtor and its counterparts. Even when there is indeed a situation where interlacing is applicable, for example, when money claims of a specific third party are subjected to collusion by the debtor’s malicious collusion, the consideration of the system interpretation, the exploration of normative purposes and the integration of legal effects should also consider that Article 52 Two items have a preferential status rather than allowing freedom of choice between the two. The normative setting of article 52, paragraph 2, of the Contract Law has not been fully justified, but the interpretation theory still helps to properly apply it in practice. And the law of legislation can provide guidelines for future revision and legislation.