随着保理作为一种新型融资工具，在中国获得快速发展，实务中出现大量的司法纠纷。但是由于长期以来，保理合同作为无名合同，缺乏相应的法律规定，导致面临法律适用困难、裁判路径不统一等问题，给保理实践与发展带来障碍。保理合同的性质是长久以来司法争议和学理争议的难点，特别是其中有追索权的保理。笔者首先通过研究裁判案例，总结出当前法院对有追索权保理合同性质认定的主要观点，由此带来的裁判差异。此后笔者从定义以及传统的学理争议出发，认为传统观点将有追索权保理的性质主要认定为债权让与、让与担保、间接给付等。但是传统观点往往只关注了保理合同中的应收账款转让，而未对保理合同的复杂性做到整体把握，笔者认为《民法典》第16章规定的保理合同涉及的法律关系具有复杂性，同时保理合同的主给付义务具有两重性，第一个主给付义务为转让应收账款债权，第二个主给付义务为保理服务的提供，二者同等重要，没有主从之分，如此构成了保理合同独特的法律构造。保理合同独特的两重主给付义务，可将保理合同的法律性质认定为混合合同。混合合同最终目的是为司法裁判提供法律指引。在法律构造层面，有追索权保理作为混合合同，在功能层面以及实务操作层面，是由让与担保的部分结合借款合同的部分。混合合同是为了解释法律适用问题，所以最后笔者对因为性质认定不同导致的裁判差异，做出回应。在具体法律适用层面，笔者认为有追索权的保理虽然不是让与担保，但是的确具备让与担保的功能，在法律后果层面，与让与担保也具有很大的相似性。所以在具体案件中，可以适用让与担保的一般规则。具体而言，参照适用让与担保一般规则，明确清偿顺序，确定保理人没有变价义务。明确保理人具有清算义务，而且该义务不能通过约定进行排除。对于管辖法院的确定，则要对让与担保进行一定变造，因为保理合同并不具备让与担保的从属性和补充性，所以当涉及对保理相关法律关系的认定层面，不应该因为其与让与担保的相似性，而错误地把它们之间的法律关系认为具有从属性、补充性，从而导致法律适用错误。

With the rapid development of factoring as a new financing tool in China, it has also led to a large number of judicial disputes in practice. However, due to the long-term factoring contract as an unnamed contract, the lack of corresponding legal regulations has caused difficulties in the application of the law and the inconsistent path of judgment, which has brought obstacles to the practice and development of factoring. The nature of factoring contracts is a long-standing difficulty in judicial and academic disputes, especially factoring with recourse. The author firstly, by studying adjudication cases, summarizes the current court's main viewpoints on the identification of the nature of factoring contracts with recourse, and the resulting discrepancies in adjudication. From then on, the author started from the definition and traditional academic disputes, and believed that the traditional view regarded the nature of the factoring with recourse as the assignment of claims, alienation guarantee, and indirect payment. However, traditional views often only pay attention to the transfer of accounts receivables in factoring contracts, and fail to grasp the overall complexity of factoring contracts. The author believes that the legal relationship involved in factoring contracts stipulated in Chapter 16 of the Civil Code is complicated. At the same time, the main payment obligation of the factoring contract is dual. The first main payment obligation is to transfer the accounts receivables, and the second main payment obligation is the provision of factoring services. This constitutes the unique legal structure of factoring contracts. The unique dual primary payment obligations of factoring contracts can identify the legal nature of factoring contracts as mixed contracts.The ultimate purpose of mixed contracts is to provide legal guidance for judicial judgments. At the legal structure level, factoring with recourse is a mixed contract. At the functional level and practical operation level, it is the part of the alienation guarantee combined with the part of the loan contract.The purpose of the mixed contract is to explain the application of law, so in the end, the author responded to the differences in judgments caused by different identifications of nature. At the level of specific legal application, the author believes that although factoring with recourse is not a alienation guarantee, it does have the function of a alienation guarantee. At the level of legal consequences, it is also very similar to a alienation guarantee. Therefore, in specific cases, the general rules of alienation guarantee can be applied.Specifically, referring to the general rules of alienation guarantee, the order of repayment is clarified, and it is determined that the factor can simultaneously claim rights to the creditor or debtor of the accounts receivables. It is clearly ensured that the factor has the obligation of liquidation, and the obligation cannot be excluded by agreement.For the determination of the court of jurisdiction, there is something different from the alienation guarantee, because the factoring contract does not have the subordination and supplementary, so it should not be wrong to regard the legal relationship between the main payment obligations as subordinate and supplementary because of its similarity with the alienation guarantee, which will lead to errors in the application of the law.