存货动态质押是实践先行的交易创新，但与其相关法律规范的制定时间则明显滞后，从而导致存货动态质押纠纷的裁判观点纷呈。存货动态质押有着传统动产质押、存货浮动抵押不可比拟的结构优势，既能给出质人留有处分存货的经营空间，又可以依托专业监管人减轻质权人占有存货的管理负担。本文主要探讨存货动态质押的概念内涵、实践运作、性质界定、法律关系、设立方式、公示方法以及同一批存货上多个担保物权竞存时的清偿顺位。具体而言，本文分为以下三个部分：

第一章主要通过概念内涵、实践运作、性质界定与法律关系的角度对存货动态质押进行概述梳理。在概念内涵方面，存货动态质押不同于存货静态质押，存货动态质押通过出质人与质权人约定质物数量价值最低要求的方式，允许出质人可以对质物价值数量约定最低要求之上的质物申请处分。在实践运作方面，存货动态质押交易模式一般包括合同签订阶段、存货动态质押设立阶段、存货动态质押存续阶段以及存货动态质押实现阶段；实践运作模式主要分为监管人仓库模式、出质人仓库模式和第四方仓库模式；实践运作特点是质押与监管的深度融合。存货动态质押的性质宜界定为动产质押而不应定位为非典型担保和浮动抵押，故而存货动态质押应该适用动产质押的有关规范。存货动态质押中的法律关系较为复杂，一般包括债务人与质权人的借款合同法律关系、出质人与质权人的质押合同法律关系以及监管人、出质人与质权人之间的混合合同法律关系。

第二章主要讨论存货动态质押的设立方式以及在具体案件中认定监管人实际控制质物的考虑因素。存货动态质押的设立要件是交付，但对于交付的内涵主要有单独占有说、共同占有说和实际控制说三种观点。单独占有说和共同占有说无法解释部分存货动态质押模式中的质权设立，而实际控制说可以较为宽泛地涵盖各类存货动态质押的质权设立。实际控制说不仅在我国法律体系中存在解释空间并且其他国家的立法例已经有所规定，交付的内涵宜延伸扩大至实际控制，从而更好顺应金融创新与保护债权人权益。在具体认定监管人是否实际控制货物时，应考虑监管协议因素、监管场所因素以及监管人是否实际履行监管义务因素，各个因素应采用动态体系论的分析方法，裁判者应根据个案案情的差异进而考量各因素对于存货动态质押设立的所占比重。

第三章主要分析同一批存货上既存在存货动态质押又存在其他担保方式的权利竞存问题。意定担保物权竞存时清偿顺位确定的关键因素是公示时间的先后。存货动态质押的公示方法主要存在登记说、控制说和占有说三种观点。登记说与控制说同我国动产占有公示与不动产登记公示的传统立法模式有所矛盾，存货动态质押的公示方法在解释论上宜遵循传统的动产占有方法，从而更好地与存货动态质押的交付要件予以呼应。同一批存货存在多个动态质押、动态质押与浮动抵押以及动态质押与仓单质押竞存的可能，因而需要通过相应的权利顺位规范对其清偿顺位进行明确，同时还应辅以举证责任分配、违约责任救济等其他机制合理平衡不同权利人之间的权益。

Inventory dynamic pledge is a transactional innovation that takes precedence in practice, but the formulation time of related laws and regulations lags behind significantly, which leads to a variety of adjudication opinions on disputes of inventory dynamic pledge. The inventory dynamic pledge has the incomparable structural advantages of traditional movable property pledge and floating mortgage of inventory, which can not only give the pledgee the business space to dispose of the inventory, but also rely on the professional supervisor to reduce the management burden of the pledgee's possession of the inventory. This article mainly discusses the conceptual connotation, practical operation, nature definition, legal relationship, establishment method, publicity method of inventory dynamic pledge, and the priority of repayment when multiple security interests in the same batch of inventory are in contention. Specifically, this article is divided into the following three sections:

The first chapter mainly summarizes the inventory dynamic pledge from the perspectives of conceptual connotation, practical operation, nature definition and legal relationship. In terms of conceptual connotation, the inventory dynamic pledge is different from the inventory static pledge, and the inventory dynamic pledge allows the pledgor to apply for the disposal of the pledge above the minimum requirement of the value of the pledge by agreeing on the minimum value of the pledge by the pledgor and the pledgee. In terms of practical operation, the transaction mode of inventory dynamic pledge generally includes the stage of contract signing, the establishment stage of inventory dynamic pledge, the stage of the existence of inventory dynamic pledge and the perfection stage of inventory dynamic pledge; the practical operation mode is mainly divided into the supervisor warehouse model, the pledgor warehouse model and the fourth-party warehouse model; the practical operation is characterized by the deep integration of pledge and supervision. The nature of inventory dynamic pledge should be defined as a pledge of movable assets rather than an atypical guarantee and floating charge, so the relevant norms of movable property pledge should be applied to the inventory dynamic pledge. The legal relationship in the inventory dynamic pledge is complex, generally including the legal relationship of the loan contract, pledge contract and the mixed contract.

Chapter 2 mainly discusses the establishment of inventory dynamic pledge and the considerations for determining the actual control of the pledge by the supervisor in specific cases. The establishment of inventory dynamic pledge is delivery, but there are three main views on the connotation of delivery: sole possession, joint possession and actual control. The theory of sole possession and the theory of joint possession cannot explain the establishment of pledge rights in the mode of dynamic pledge of some inventories, while the theory of actual control can cover the establishment of pledges in the dynamic pledge of various types of inventories in a broader way. The doctrine of actual control not only has room for interpretation in China's legal system but has been stipulated in the legislation of other countries, and the connotation of delivery should be extended to actual control, so as to better comply with financial innovation and protect the rights and interests of creditors. When specifically determining whether the supervisor actually controls the goods, the factors of the supervision agreement, the supervision site and whether the supervisor actually performs the regulatory obligations should be considered, and the analysis method of flexible system theory should be adopted for each factor, and the adjudicator should consider the proportion of each factor in the establishment of the inventory dynamic pledge according to the differences in the circumstances of each case.

Chapter 3 mainly analyzes the existence of both inventory dynamic pledge and other forms of security on the same batch of inventory. The key factor in determining the priority of repayment when intending to compete for a security interest is the order of the time of publicity. There are three main views on the publicity methods of inventory dynamic pledge: the theory of registration, the theory of control and the theory of possession. The theory of registration and the theory of control contradicts the traditional legislative model of publicity of movable property possession and immovable property registration in China, and the publicity method of inventory dynamic pledge should follow the traditional method of possession of movable property, so as to better echo the delivery requirements of inventory dynamic pledge. There are multiple dynamic pledges, dynamic pledges and floating pledges, as well as dynamic pledges and warehouse receipt pledges competing for the same batch of inventory, so it is necessary to clarify the repayment priorities through the corresponding rights priority specifications, and at the same time, it should be supplemented by other mechanisms such as the allocation of the burden of proof and the relief of liability for breach of contract to reasonably balance the rights and interests of different rights holders.