合同无效所涉请求权的诉讼时效问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-17 08:25

本文选题：无效合同 + 诉讼时效　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：合同无效所涉诉讼时效问题是司法实践中较为常见的问题。但在《民法通则》、《合同法》两部法律,以及最高人民法院最新出台的有关民诉问题的规定中,都没有对无效合同的确认、确认后产生的相关请求权是否应该适用诉讼时效制度作出规定。并且无论是在理论界还是法律实务界对此问题争议不断,难以形成统一的观点。正是因为我国缺少关于无效合同的诉讼时效问题的统一规定,导致司法实践中出现同案不同判的尴尬情况。设立合同无效制度其最根本目的就是为了维护当事人的合法权益、保护国家和社会的公共利益,从而实现稳定社会秩序,维护交易安全。如果不能科学、合理的解决好这类问题,势必会影响司法审判的统一性、权威性,亦有碍于国家法律制度的完善。因此,为了更好地保护当事人的合法权益,兼顾合同法自由、公平和效率的价值追求,对这一问题的分析探究是必要而迫切的。本文第一部分试从司法实践的真实案例入手,通过对比两个无效合同案例的判决结果,一个认定应适用诉讼时效;一个认为一旦时效期间经过,当事人的诉讼请求法院将不予支持,进而引出无效合同对诉讼时效制度是否适用的问题。文章第二部分分析确认合同无效是否应适用诉讼时效制度这一问题,通过对肯定说、否定说、以及折中说三种学说观点的阐述、评析进而论证确认合同无效不应适用诉讼时效制度。其原因主要从诉讼时效的客体、诉的类型、法的价值几个角度进行分析。第三部分则是针对合同无效被确认后产生的财产返还请求权的诉讼时效问题。对于这个问题,财产应区分有体物和无体物的,然后通过登记制度予以分类适用。首先,无体物返还请求权在性质上属于不当得利请求权,适用诉讼时效制度。其次,有体物方面,在登记所有权场合由于相对人对登记制度的公信公示效力的信赖,已登记的有体物返还请求权不适用诉讼时效制度较为合理;在未登记所有物返还请求权的场合,则应适用诉讼时效制度,这样既能更好的保护当事人的利益又能维护法的价值。再者,关于财产返还请求权适用诉讼时效后,时效期间的起算点问题,学界存在合同订立之日起算说、给付财产之日起算说等争议学说。笔者认为其适用诉讼时效的起算点应统一由司法机关确认合同无效之日起计算更为合理。文章的第四部分,则针对无效合同确认后所产生的损害赔偿请求权的诉讼时效问题进行分析。损害赔偿请求权在性质上属于债权,适用诉讼时效制度。而在损害赔偿请求权适用诉讼时效制度后其时效期间的起算点应由司法机关确认合同无效之日起计算为准。
[Abstract]:The limitation of action involved in invalidation of contract is a common problem in judicial practice. However, in the "General principles of Civil Law", the "contract Law" and the latest provisions of the Supreme people's Court concerning the issue of civil litigation, there is no confirmation of invalid contracts. Whether the relevant right of claim after confirmation should be regulated by the statute of limitations system. And it is difficult to form a unified point of view because of the constant controversy on this issue in both theoretical and legal circles. It is precisely because our country lacks the unified stipulation about the limitation of action of invalid contract, cause the awkward situation of different judgment of the same case in the judicial practice. The fundamental purpose of setting up the system of invalid contract is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, protect the public interests of the state and society, thus realize the stability of social order and safeguard the security of transactions. If this kind of problem can not be solved scientifically, it will inevitably affect the unity and authority of judicial trial, and also hinder the perfection of national legal system. Therefore, in order to better protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and to give consideration to the value pursuit of freedom, fairness and efficiency of contract law, it is necessary and urgent to analyze and explore this issue. The first part of this article tries to start with the real cases in judicial practice, by comparing the judgment results of two invalid contract cases, one finds that the statute of limitations should be applied; the other thinks that once the limitation period has passed, The litigant's request will not be supported by the court, which leads to the question of whether the invalid contract is applicable to the statute of limitations system. The second part of the article analyzes whether the system of limitation of action should be applied to confirm the invalidity of a contract. The analysis further demonstrates that the system of limitation of action should not be applied to confirm the invalidity of the contract. The reasons are mainly analyzed from the object of limitation, the type of action and the value of law. The third part is about the limitation of the property restitution claim after the invalidity of the contract is confirmed. In this case, property should distinguish between physical and non-physical, and then be classified and applied through the registration system. First of all, the claim right of return of incorporeal objects belongs to the right of unjust enrichment in nature, and the system of limitation of action is applied. Secondly, on the aspect of body matter, due to the trust of the relative party to the public credit of the registration system, it is more reasonable that the registered claim right to return the body property is not applicable to the limitation of action system. In the case where the right of return of property is not registered, the system of limitation of action should be applied, which can better protect the interests of the parties and maintain the value of the law. Furthermore, as to the issue of the starting point of the limitation period after the application of the statute of limitations to the claim for the return of property, there are some controversial theories in academic circles, such as from the date of the conclusion of the contract and from the date of payment of the property. The author thinks that it is more reasonable to calculate the starting point of the limitation of action from the day when the judicial organ confirms the invalidity of the contract. In the fourth part, the author analyzes the limitation of damages caused by the confirmation of invalid contract. The right of claim for damages belongs to creditor's rights in nature, and the system of limitation of action is applied. The starting point of the limitation period after the application of the limitation system in the claim for damages shall be calculated from the date of the confirmation of invalidity of the contract by the judicial organ.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】