论违反强制性规定合同之效力

发布时间：2018-06-19 17:19

本文选题：强制性规定 + 合同效力　；参考：《吉林大学》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：随着市场经济的不断发展,我国在当前又要迎接全球化的挑战。然而,我国的一些法律制度并未完全因应这样的时代发展方向。特别是在市场经济中可发挥重大作用的《合同法》上的一些制度。比如说,《合同法》上明确规定,违反强制性规定的合同无效。无论是在理论上还是在司法实践上,我们都能发现,此规定并没有如立法者立法时所考虑的那样,让它指导人们去追求正当利益,而是限制和减少了理性自由人通过自我意志去追求自身利益的自由,甚至演化成了理性人追求正当利益过程中的最大障碍,而在司法实践中起到与立法意旨大相径庭的效果。导致这种状况的原因是多方面的,它不仅仅是制度上的问题,法律制定上的缺陷也是主要因素之一。究其具体原因,其中最主要的就是我国缺乏意思自治或合同自由的传统,而且现代的私法精神还没有在社会运行和法律制定中得以充分确立。本文就是在这种现实状况的基础上,对违反强制性规定合同的效力在我国立法和实践中的变化进行梳理并予以研究。在第一章,我们深入研究了违反强制性规定合同效力的一般理论及其理论根源,指出究竟如何界定强制性规定,须从法的一般原理、强制性规定的本质特征、立法技术及我国法律、行政法规的现状诸因素的综合分析中寻找答案。具体说来分别指出,强制性规定如果系禁止人们从事某项行为,设定该项行为义务的合同则应认定无效；法律、法规中的强制性规定如果纯系为交易行为设定一定的管理程序而设,则违反此类强制性规定的合同原则上应该认定为有效,但不排除行政机关可依法对违反规定的当事人进行行政处罚的可能；法律、法规行政中的强制性规定的目的如果是为了保护社会公众的利益,则违反此类强制性规定的合同应该无效。我们在利用强制性规定判定合同效力时,应当明确该规定的规范意旨和立法目的,结合公序良俗来判断违反强制性规定合同的效力,将公序良俗内化于强制性规定的规范意旨和立法目的之中,具体判断合同的效力。在第二章,通过对法国、德国、日本等大陆法系国家违反强制性规定合同效力相关制度的比较研究,指出在大陆法系传统下的各国民法理论和学说中,全都没有“违反法律强制性规定的合同无效”的规定或说法,而是分别将强制性规定按其针对的法律行为的性质之不同进行区分,并对违反行为的效力分别加以规定。尽管各国民法在立法技术上存有差异,但都以违反法律规定和公序良俗作为确定合同无效的标准。具体表现在立法例上就是：要么规定了违反法律规定“和”公序良俗的合同无效；要么规定了违反法律规定“或”公序良俗的合同无效。当然不能忽视,不论是违反法律规定还是违背公序良俗,各国各地区的法院在操作司法行为时,其行为旨趣都会随着时代的变化而变化,并且呈现出了各自的特色。但它们有一项基本的共同点,那就是,至少就实践而言,各国各地区都基本上认为,法官认定合同之效力,应当视法律的立法目的而定,并非一律因违反法律而无效。由此为我国违反强制性规定合同效力法律的完善提供借鉴。在第三章,我们考察了我国民法从《民法通则》到《合同法》的立法嬗变过程,透视出违反强制性规定合同效力制度自《民法通则》至《合同法》的变革,指出与《民法通则》相比,《合同法》在违反强制性规定合同效力问题的规定上,虽已赋予民事主体更为充分的自由度,但也必须承认,诸多依意思自治而缔结的合同仍会因违反国家的强制性规定而在实践中被直接认定无效。继而在实务中对违反强制性规定合同效力立法疏漏的认识,以及典型判决对违反强制性规定合同效力的认定上,都体现着简单粗暴的制裁,经常令民事主体的自由意志遭到行政权力的损害。由此针对违反强制性规定合同效力的司法解释见解的演变,我们提出导致我国长期将违反强制性规定的合同一律认定为无效的原因具体可归纳为三方面：较为缺乏现代私法精神与私法传统：否认个人在市场经济中的利益和作用；法律条文的文字表意不明。在此基础上,我们主张,在我国法制现代化的发展进程中,公法与私法的相对分离,是当前市场经济条件下判断合同效力的理论基础,以国家权力至上、国家意志决定一切等为标志的国家权力本位观念应退出历史舞台,取而代之的应是社会本位观念,确立以意思自治与合同自由作为现代私法体系的核心理念,以社会群体的利益为现代私法发展的源动力和终极目标。在合同效力理论上,应当信奉这样的观念：并非任何违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定均当然无效,我们应当采纳现代市场经济的复杂化思维方式而有条件地承认其有效,其判别的基本标准是以合同的履行是否实质违反公序良俗或者社会公共利益为理论依据。也就是说,即使合同被认定为无效,其主要原因也不在于其违反了法律的强制性规定,而关键是因为其行为同时构成对社会公共利益或者说是公序良俗的违反。在第四章,我们讨论了合同违反强制性规定之效力的判定问题,坚持公私二元相对分离但又相互融合的观点,并指出两者分离才有强制性规范与任意性规范的存在事实,而两者融合才有私法行为违反强制性条款的可能。《合同法司法解释(二)》14条规定,合同法52条第5项规定的强制性规定是指效力性强制规定；09年最高院关于《当前形势下审理民商事合同纠纷案件若干问题的指导意见》15条指出：“……人民法院应当根据合同法解释(二)14条之规定,注意区分效力性强制规定与管理性强制规定。违反效力性强制规定的,人民法院应当认定合同无效,违反管理性强制性规定的,人民法院应当根据具体情形认定其效力。”上述《指导意见》把强制性规定分为效力性规范和管理性规范,但在司法实践中,效力性规范和管理性规范的二分并不像法条本身表现出来的那样精确,关于合同效力状态的司法争论往往可归结于其违反的强制性规定到底是效力性规范还是管理性规范。通过公私法的相对分离和内在衔接的处理方法,虽能在一定程度上厘清两种规范的区别,但依靠类型化的列举方式不可能穷尽所有的强制性规范类型,仍然有一些强制性规范并不能被囊括到列举的强制性规范类型中；即使某些强制性规范已被归为某一类别的强制性规范,但对其属于效力性规范还是管理性规范的问题仍有可能产生争议。因此,对于违反强制性规定的合同效力予以认定,除了规范分析方法之外,尚且存在复杂的价值衡量问题。而在价值衡量中,作者将探寻立法旨意的目的解释方法,以均衡性、适合性和必要性为内在要求的比例原则,和以效率、效益等价值为内容的经济分析方法在违反强制性规定合同效力的判定中予以适用。即便如此,上述三种方法仍未能穷尽违反强制性规定合同效力的判定路径,由此我们把公序良俗视为兜底标准。所谓兜底标准是指把公序良俗作为判定合同效力的价值补充,把生活世界中不断变化的一般秩序、一般利益、基本道德认同等内容纳入其中,由此保持民法的开放性姿态,实现民法与社会生活的无缝对接,同时也与《民法通则》第七条和《合同法》第七条相呼应,使得民事行为若违反了公序良俗,并非仅仅只是与公序良俗的具体内容相违背,也与民法的基本原则相违背,考量案件就不仅需要借助于民法上的具体规范,而且需要借助于民法上的基本原则。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of the market economy, China is facing the challenge of globalization at present. However, some of our legal systems are not entirely due to the direction of the times. In particular, some systems in the contract law, which can play an important role in the market economy, are clearly stipulated in the contract law, in violation of the mandatory provisions. The contract is invalid. Whether it is in theory or in judicial practice, we can find that this regulation does not allow it to guide people to pursue legitimate interests, but to restrict and reduce the freedom of the rational and free people to pursue their own interests by self will, even to the rational people. The greatest obstacle in the process of justifiable interests is the most different from the legislative purpose. The cause of this situation is multifaceted. It is not only a problem in the system, but also one of the main factors in the legal formulation. The main reason is the lack of autonomy in our country. Or the tradition of freedom of contract, and the modern spirit of private law has not been fully established in social operation and law making. On the basis of this reality, this article combs and studies the changes in the effect of violating the force of compulsory contract in our country's legislation and practice.
In the first chapter, we deeply study the general theory and its theoretical roots that violate the validity of the compulsory contract, and point out how to define the mandatory provisions in the comprehensive analysis of the general principles of the law, the essential characteristics of the mandatory provisions, the legislative technology and our laws and the current administrative regulations. It is pointed out that, if the mandatory provisions prohibit people to engage in a certain act, the contract for setting the obligation should be deemed invalid, and the mandatory provisions in the law and regulations should be established in principle of a contract that violates such mandatory provisions if it is set for a certain administrative procedure for the conduct of a transaction, but it should not be excluded. It is possible for an administrative organ to impose administrative penalties on a party who violates the prescribed law; if the purpose of a mandatory provision in the law and regulations is to protect the interests of the public, a contract that violates such mandatory provisions should be invalid. We should make clear the provisions of the contract when we use mandatory regulations to determine the validity of the contract. To standardize the purpose and legislative purpose, to judge the validity of the contract in violation of the mandatory provisions in combination with the public order and good custom, and to internalize the public order and good customs in the normative and legislative purposes of the mandatory provisions, and to determine the validity of the contract.
In the second chapter, through comparative study on the system of violation of compulsory contract effectiveness in countries of France, Germany, Japan and other continental law countries, it is pointed out that in the civil law theories and doctrines of the countries of the continental law system, there are no provisions or statements of "breach of law compulsory contract". According to the differences in the nature of the legal acts against which they are directed, and the validity of the violation is stipulated separately. Although there are differences in the legislative technology of civil law in various countries, the standards of breach of law and public order and good customs are used as the criteria for determining the void of the contract. The contract of "and" the public order and good custom is invalid; or the contract that violates the law "or" the public order and good custom is invalid. Of course, it can not be ignored, whether it is in violation of the law or the public order, and the courts of various countries and regions will change their acts with the changes of the times when they operate the judicial act. But they have a basic common point, but they have a basic common point, that is, at least in practice, all countries and regions basically think that the judge's confirmation of the validity of the contract should be determined by the legislative purpose of the law, not all ineffective as a result of the violation of the law. This provides a reference for our country to violate the law on the validity of the compulsory contract.
In the third chapter, we examine the evolution of the legislation of civil law in China from the general principles of the civil law to the law of the contract, and find out the reform of the system of contravention of the force of compulsory contract from the general rules of the civil law to the law of the contract, and points out that, compared with the general rules of the civil law, the contract law has given the civil owner the rule in violation of the validity of the mandatory provisions of the contract. The body is more fully free, but it must be acknowledged that a number of contracts concluded by the autonomy of autonomy will remain ineffective in practice in violation of the mandatory provisions of the state. In practice, the understanding of the legislative omission of the breach of the mandatory provisions of the contract and the recognition of the validity of the compelling contract in violation of the mandatory provisions of the contract. On the one hand, they all embody the simple and rough sanctions, which often make the free will of the civil subject be damaged by the administrative power. Thus, in view of the evolution of judicial interpretations that violates the force of the compulsory contract, we put forward that the reason that the law of the contract which has been violating compulsory regulations for a long time is null and void can be summed up into three parties. Face: the lack of modern private law spirit and private law tradition: denying the interests and functions of individual in the market economy; the literal expression of the legal provisions is unknown. On this basis, we claim that the relative separation of public law from private law is the theory of judging the validity of the contract under the current market economy. The concept of national power standard, which is based on the supremacy of state power and the determination of the state's will, should be withdrawn from the historical stage and should be replaced by the concept of social standard, establishing the core concept of the autonomy of the meaning and the freedom of contract as the modern private law system, and the source and ultimate goal of the development of modern private law with the interests of the social groups. In the theory of the validity of the contract, it should be believed that not any violation of the law, the mandatory provisions of the administrative regulations are of course ineffective. We should adopt the complicated thinking mode of the modern market economy and recognize its validity conditionally. The basic criterion of its discrimination is whether the performance of the contract is in substance violation of public order and good customs or not. The public interest of the society is the theoretical basis. That is to say, even if the contract is deemed to be invalid, the main reason is not that it violates the mandatory provisions of the law, but the key is that its behavior constitutes a violation of public interests or public order and good customs.
In the fourth chapter, we discuss the determination of the effectiveness of the breach of the mandatory provisions of the contract, adhere to the view that the public and private two yuan is relatively separate but merge with each other, and points out that the separation of the two only has the existence of the mandatory norms and the arbitrariness norms, and the combination of the two has the possibility of violating the mandatory provisions of the private law. < the judicial interpretation of the contract law. Interpretation (two) >14 stipulates that the mandatory provisions of the 52 articles and fifth provisions of the contract law refer to the effective compulsory provisions; the guiding opinion of the Supreme Court of the 09 year on the cases of civil and commercial contract disputes under the current situation indicates that, "the people's court should pay attention to the difference of the force of force in accordance with the provisions of the interpretation of the contract law (two) 14." In violation of the force of force, the people's court shall determine that the contract is invalid and that the people's court shall determine its effectiveness according to the specific circumstances. "The guiding opinions above shall be divided into effective norms and regulatory norms, but in judicial practice, the effectiveness of the court shall be effective. The two points of normative and managerial norms are not as accurate as that of the law itself. Judicial arguments about the state of the validity of the contract can be attributed to whether the mandatory provisions of the contract are effective or managerial. The relative separation of public and private law and the treatment of internal cohesion can be to a certain extent. To clarify the differences between the two norms, but the type of enumeration can not exhaustion all the peremptory norm types. There are still some mandatory norms that can not be included in the list of mandatory norm types; even some mandatory norms have been classified as strong norms of a certain category, but they belong to the effective norms. It is still possible to dispute the problem of management norms. Therefore, in addition to the standard analysis method, there is a complicated problem of value measurement in addition to the normative analysis method. In value measurement, the author will explore the method of interpretation of the purpose of legislative purport, which is inherent in balance, suitability and necessity. The requirements of the principle of proportion, and the value of efficiency, efficiency and other value of the content of the economic analysis method in violation of the validity of the mandatory provisions of the contract to be applied. Even so, the above three methods are still unable to exhaustion the determination of the effectiveness of the mandatory provisions of the contract, thus we regard the public order and good customs as the standard of the bottom of the pocket. It is necessary to add the public order and good custom as the value of the validity of the contract, and integrate the changing general order, general interests and basic moral identity in the life world, thus maintaining the open attitude of the civil law and realizing the seamless connection between civil law and social life, and at the same time, the general rules of the civil law, the seventh articles and the contract law seventh. If the civil action violates the public order and good customs, it is not only contrary to the specific content of public order and good customs, but also violates the basic principles of civil law. It is not only necessary to use the specific norms in civil law but also the basic principles of civil law.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】