民间借贷合同效力问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-31 12:56

本文选题：民间借贷合同　切入点：主体　出处：《辽宁大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文详细论述了民间借贷合同的特点、作用和我国当前立法模式。在民间借贷合同特点方面，考虑到民间借贷合同这一称呼主要是对比银行借款合同来说，故采取了两者对比论述的方法。在民间借款合同作用方面，本文全面论述了其积极作用和消极作用，认为总体而言利大于弊。同时，本文认为当前我国对于民间借贷合同规定的法律模式，可以称之为锥形、二元化、管制型立法模式。这主要考虑到按法理学位阶理论分析，法律文件效力分布呈锥形状。现行对于民间借贷合同效力的直接性细则规定，采取了有效无效截然性划分的二元化立法模式。在内容上，法律强制性规定细化到许多本应由民间借贷合同当事人自主决定的部分。在影响到民间借贷合同效力问题的主体资格问题上，本文认为我国现行法律规定并不完善。现行法律法规对于企业与企业之间的借款合同效力持否定态度，这既不符合法理也不符合现实需要。本文认为认可企业与企业之间的借款合同效力完全具有可行性。无论是地方内部性规定，还是一些现行法律法规，对于企业与企业之间的借款合同效力都有着默许的态度，况且这更多属于私法自治的范畴。对于自然人与企业之间的借款合同效力，目前有部分有效观点、完全有效观点和介于前两者之间的观点。本文认为当前对于此类合同分为合同有效和非法集资行为则有着现实的意义。另外，尽管对于村委会与村民之间借贷合同效力没有法律明文规定，理论上也存在争议，但是本文认为这两者之间进行借贷有着法律与财务上的可行性。在影响合同效力的利息问题上，理论上有着放开说、管制说和折中说三种观点。放开说主张将利息问题作为市场问题看，同时列举国外法律的放开性规定。管制说更多考虑到金融风险的存在。折中说的态度则介于两者之间。事实上对于这一问题，立法者也很为难。这表现在关于单复利问题的司法解释之间和法条之间的前后矛盾，，也表现在最高院与人民银行对于高利贷的界定标准不同。本文认为利息管制不能简单的“一刀切”解决，而应当根据不同的情况区别性规定利率高低。首先，充分发挥地方立法权的作用，不同经济条件的地区可以规定不同利率标准。其次，根据借贷用途不同，区分性规定生产性借贷、消费借贷和公益性借贷的利率标准。再次，区别规定收益性利息与处罚性利息。在合同目的问题方面，本文从民间借贷实践出发，结合合同法理论问题，作了详细论述。本文反对现行关于民间借贷合同的二元化立法模式，对于民间借贷合同目的虚假的情况，本文不主张采取一刀切式的无效观点，而将其依情况不同，分为自始无效、效力待定和部分无效的情况。对于合同资金实际用途与合同约定不符问题也应当根据实际情况区分合同有效或无效。
[Abstract]:This paper discusses in detail the characteristics, functions and current legislative model of the private loan contract. In terms of the characteristics of the private loan contract, considering that the term "folk loan contract" is mainly compared with the bank loan contract, Therefore, the author adopts the method of comparing the two methods. In the aspect of the function of folk loan contract, this paper comprehensively discusses its positive and negative effects, and thinks that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in general. At the same time, This article thinks that the current legal model of the folk loan contract in our country can be called conical, dualistic and regulatory legislative model. The distribution of the validity of legal documents is cone-shaped. The current direct rules for the validity of private lending contracts have adopted a dualistic legislative model of dividing the validity and invalidity of diametrically. The mandatory provisions of the law are detailed to many parts that should be independently determined by the parties to private loan contracts. On the question of the subject qualification which affects the validity of the folk loan contract, this paper holds that the current laws and regulations of our country are not perfect, and the existing laws and regulations negate the validity of the loan contract between the enterprise and the enterprise. This is neither in line with legal theory nor with practical needs. This paper holds that the validity of loan contracts between enterprises is completely feasible. Whether it is local internal regulations or some existing laws and regulations, There is a tacit attitude towards the validity of loan contracts between enterprises, and this is more within the scope of private law autonomy. There are currently some valid views on the validity of loan contracts between natural persons and enterprises. This paper holds that there is realistic significance for such contracts to be divided into valid contracts and illegal fund-raising. Although there are no legal provisions on the validity of the loan contract between the village committee and the villagers, there are disputes in theory, but this paper believes that the loan between the two has legal and financial feasibility. On the issue of interest which affects the validity of the contract, there are three viewpoints in theory: liberalism, regulation and compromise. At the same time, it enumerates the liberalizing provisions of foreign laws. The regulation theory takes into account the existence of financial risks more. The compromise attitude is somewhere between the two. In fact, for this issue, Lawmakers are also in a difficult position. This is manifested in inconsistencies between the judicial interpretation of the issue of single compound interest and the provisions of the law. This article holds that interest control can not be simply "one-size-fits-all" solution, but should be based on different circumstances to specify the level of interest rate. First of all, To give full play to the role of local legislative power, different regions with different economic conditions can set different interest rate standards. Secondly, according to the different purposes of borrowing, differentiated rates of interest rates for productive lending, consumer borrowing and public welfare borrowing can be stipulated. Again, Distinguish between regulated interest on earnings and interest on penalties. In terms of the purpose of the contract, this paper discusses in detail from the practice of folk borrowing and combining with the theory of contract law. For the situation that the purpose of the folk loan contract is false, this article does not advocate adopting a one-size-fits-all view of invalidity, but divides it into original invalidity according to the situation. As to the actual use of the contract funds and the non-conformity with the contract agreement, the validity or invalidity of the contract shall be distinguished according to the actual circumstances.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】