融资租赁业务作为一种融资的手段，自20世纪80年代传入我国至今得到了飞速的发展，其中售后回租型融资租赁作为融资租赁的一种特殊类型，因其灵活性、简便性受到了广大中小企业的青睐。然而目前存在售后回租相关的法律规范缺乏，司法实践对售后回租的认定有争议，租赁物的范围界定不清，出租人权益得不到完善的保护等问题。本文旨在通过实证研究的方法，分析法院现有判例，明晰认定售后回租的标准，界定清晰的租赁物范围，学习域外的经验完善售后回租的相关法律规范。本文具体分为以下五个章节。

第一章为售后回租型融资租赁概述。介绍了融资租赁以及融资租赁的历史发展，售后回租是融资租赁的特殊类型，理论界对于售后回租的性质有不同的观点分别有让与担保说以及借贷契约说，售后回租相比于其他融资方式有着自己独特的价值功能。目前关于调整售后回租的法律规范不足，而对售后回租法律规制的必要性进行分析，发现售后回租主要存在法律规定不完善、司法标准不统一、双方当事人逃避监管，破坏金融交易秩序等问题。

第二章为我国售后回租型融资租赁立法规制现状。通过梳理我国关于售后回租的法律规范，来观察售后回租的立法规制现状。在民法典前售后回租通过《金融租赁公司管理办法》来调整，之后出台的《融资租赁司法解释》、《民法典（草案）》逐渐认可售后回租的效力。但在《民法典》中又将草案稿关于售后回租的规定删除。通过梳理法律规范，可以得出目前售后回租存在相关法律缺乏，与破产法衔接不足以及对出租人权益保护不够等立法层面的问题。

第三章为售后回租型融资租赁司法检视。在司法实践中主要存在售后回租司法识别、售后回租租赁物问题以及售后回租登记所有权效力问题，通过总结裁判思路，明确法院认定售后回租、第三人善意的标准，界定清晰的租赁物范围，在登记所有权的优先效力方面，售后回租不能适用购买价金担保权。

第四章为域外售后回租型融资租赁相关法制经验。借鉴域外丰富的立法经验，更好的完善我国现有的售后回租法律制度。如韩国在租赁物的范围上采取列举式禁止性规定。

第五章为完善我国售后回租型融资租赁的建议。立法层面需要对售后回租进行确认，界定清晰的租赁物范围，限制出租人破产取回权的适用，明确登记所有权的对抗效力。司法层面统一法院关于售后回租的司法识别以及认定第三人善意的标准。监管方面需要建立统一的融资租赁登记平台以及融资租赁保险制度。

Financial leasing business as a means of financing, since the 1980s has been introduced into the rapid development of our country, among which, as a special type of financial leasing, after-sales leaseback financial leasing is favored by the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises because of its flexibility and simplicity. However, at present, there are some problems such as lack of legal norms related to sale and leaseback, disputes over the identification of sale and leaseback in judicial practice, unclear definition of the scope of the leaseback, and imperfect protection of lessor's rights and interests. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the existing cases of the court through the method of empirical research, clarify the criteria for identifying sale and leaseback, define the clear scope of leaseback, and improve the relevant legal norms of sale and leaseback by learning extraterritorial experience. This paper is divided into the following five chapters.

The first chapter is the overview of sale and leaseback finance lease. The paper introduces the historical development of finance lease and finance lease. Sale and leaseback is a special type of finance lease. The theoretical circle has different views on the nature of sale and leaseback, including the assignment guarantee and loan contract, and the sale and leaseback has its unique value function compared with other financing methods. At present, there are insufficient legal norms on the adjustment of sale and leaseback. By analyzing the necessity of legal regulations on sale and leaseback, it is found that sale and leaseback mainly has problems such as imperfect legal provisions, inconsistent judicial standards, evasion of supervision by both parties and destruction of financial transaction order.

The second chapter is about the legislative regulations of after-sales lease-back type financing lease in our country. By combing our legal norms on sale leaseback, the current situation of the legislative regulation on sale leaseback is observed. Before the Civil Code, sale-leaseback was adjusted through the Management Measures of Financial Leasing Companies, and later the Judicial Interpretation of Financial Leasing and the Civil Code (Draft) gradually recognized the effect of sale-leaseback. However, the provisions on sale and leaseback in the draft were deleted in the Civil Code. By sorting out the legal norms, it can be concluded that there are some problems at the legislative level, such as the lack of laws related to sale and leaseback, the lack of connection with the bankruptcy law and the lack of protection of the rights and interests of lessors.

The third chapter is the judicial review of sale and leaseback finance lease. In judicial practice, there are mainly sale-leaseback judicial identification, sale-leaseback leaseback issues and the validity of sale-leaseback registration ownership. By summing up the judgment ideas, the criteria for the court to recognize sale-leaseback and the good faith of the third party are clearly defined, and the scope of leaseback is clearly defined. In terms of the priority effect of registered ownership, sale-leaseback cannot apply the guarantee right of purchase price.

Chapter four is the legal experience of foreign sale-leaseback financial lease. We should improve the existing legal system of sale and leaseback by drawing on the rich legislative experience from abroad. For example, in Korea, the scope of leasehold is prohibited by enumeration.

The fifth chapter is some suggestions to perfect sale - back type financing lease of our country. At the legislative level, it is necessary to confirm the sale and leaseback, define the scope of the leaseback clearly, restrict the application of the leaseback right in bankruptcy, and clearly register the antagonistic effect of ownership. Judicial level to unify the judicial identification of the court on sale and leaseback and the criteria for identifying the good faith of the third party. In terms of supervision, it is suggested to establish a unified financial lease registration platform and establish a financial lease insurance system.