分期付款股权转让合同的司法裁判——指导案例67号裁判规则质疑

发布时间：2018-05-02 00:16

本文选题：分期付款股权转让合同 + 《合同法》第条　；参考：《环球法律评论》2017年04期

【摘要】：最高人民法院发布的指导案例67号裁判要点认为,分期付款股权转让人解除合同的,不适用《合同法》第167条有关解除合同的规定,理由是分期付款股权转让合同不同于以消费为目的的分期付款买卖合同。该裁判理由与立法和司法实际不符。审判实践中,以生产经营为目的的分期付款买卖合同纠纷远多于以消费为目的的分期付款买卖合同纠纷。交付标的物后分期付款是分期付款买卖合同的本质属性,该指导案例未能根据这一属性分析所涉分期付款股权转让合同能否类推适用分期付款买卖合同的规定,同时混淆了《合同法》第94条规定的解除权与第167条规定的解除权之间的区别,将不能满足第94条规定的解除要件,阐释为不适用第167条的理由。事实上,股权转让合同对买卖合同有关规定的参照适用,与对合同法总则的适用是不矛盾的,该指导案例的裁判规则引人误解,殊值反思。
[Abstract]:The main points of judgment No. 67, a guiding case issued by the Supreme people's Court, hold that if the transferor cancels the contract by installment, the provisions of Article 167 of the contract Law concerning the dissolution of the contract shall not be applicable. The reason is that the installment equity transfer contract is different from the installment purchase contract for consumption purpose. The reasons for the decision are inconsistent with legislative and judicial practice. In trial practice, the dispute of installment sale contract for production and management is much more than that for consumption. After delivery of the subject matter, installment payment is the essential attribute of the installment sale contract, according to which the guiding case fails to analyze whether the provisions of the installment purchase contract can be applied by analogy to the installment equity transfer contract. At the same time, it confuses the difference between the right of rescission stipulated in Article 94 of contract Law and the right of rescission stipulated in Article 167, which is interpreted as the reason why Article 167 is not applicable. In fact, there is no contradiction between the reference and application of the relevant provisions of the contract law and the application of the general principles of contract law.
【作者单位】：华东政法大学经济法学院;
【基金】：江苏省第四期“333工程”科研项目“公司纠纷案件裁判说理研究”(BRA2015335)的研究成果
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】