附随义务与合同解除

发布时间：2018-09-12 17:31

【摘要】：义务群是债法的核心问题。现代债法的发展，在一定意义上可以说是债之关系上义务群的发展。1999年《中华人民共和国合同法》首次规定附随义务，但是不论在理论界还是实务界对附随义务的认识和研究都尚未成熟。不但附随义务的类型有待商榷，而且关于债务人违反附随义务是否导致合同解除权的发生这一问题尚无定论。本文旨在讨论债务人违反附随义务的情况下可否导致债权人的法定解除权的发生，具体分五个部分展开论述。第一部分概述了我国关于附随义务的立法现状和关于是否发生解除权的典型判例，并指出违反附随义务在法律后果上的争议焦点：合同履行过程中，，一方当事人违反附随义务，另一方当事人可否行使解除权以解除合同。如果债权人得以行使解除权，那么此种解除权需要何种行使要件。第二部分具体阐述了附随义务的基本理论作为后文开展论述的铺垫。重点分析了附随义务得以构建的理论基础、判例基础和立法基础。在此基础上理清与附随义务相关的其他概念，如从给付义务和不真正义务。从而通过比较将附随义务与其他易混淆的概念区分开来，在概念上划清了对附随义务界定。第三部分紧接着前一部分的论述，提出附随义务的概念、表征和类型。由于附随义务的内容和范围具有开放性和不确定性，各国学者对此的看法并不统一。笔者有必要先界定本文所论述的附随义务的概念和类型，以方便下文讨论的展开。具体而言，通过对德国、日本、我国台湾地区和国内学者观点的梳理和分析，界定本文中所讨论的附随义务的内涵和外延。第四部分探讨了债务人违反附随义务能否导致债权人的法定解除权的发生。德国的立法上，德国债法修订后，于第324条中明确规定在双务合同中，若债务人违反第241条第2款规定之义务（即附随义务），且对债权人而言维持合同将不再能够期待，则债权人得解除合同。日本学术界对该问题多持否定态度，认为一旦违反附随义务构成法定解除权发生之原因，那么该附随义务即为要素债务。但也有少数学者持肯定态度。我国台湾地区的学者对此有三种态度，即肯定说、否定说和折中说。我国国内学者对此问题讨论诸多，多持肯定说。笔者在综合分析上述比较法上的观点后提出自己的见解，赞成折中说，并分析此种解除权的发生要件。第五部分进行生效判例的解读和研究，并在此判例的基础上改编出两例新案情以支持本文论点：即只有当因可归责于债务人之原因，违反附随义务的行为足以导致合同目的之落空或作为合同基础的信赖关系之丧失时，债权人得以合同法第94条第4款行使法定解除权。
[Abstract]:Obligation group is the core problem of debt law. In a certain sense, the development of modern debt law can be said to be the development of obligation groups in the relationship of debt. In 1999, the contract Law of the people's Republic of China first stipulated collateral obligations. However, the understanding and research of collateral obligation is not mature either in theory or in practice. Not only is the type of collateral obligation open to question, but there is no final conclusion as to whether the debtor's breach of collateral obligation leads to the occurrence of the right to rescind the contract. The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the debtor can lead to the occurrence of the creditor's right of legal discharge under the circumstance of breach of collateral obligation, which is divided into five parts. The first part summarizes the legislative status of collateral obligations in China and the typical cases on whether the right of rescission occurs, and points out the dispute focus on the legal consequences of breach of collateral obligations: in the process of contract performance, one party violates the collateral obligation. Can the other party exercise the right to rescind the contract. If the creditor is able to exercise the right of discharge, then what is the requirement for such discharge. The second part elaborates the basic theory of collateral obligation as the paver of the following discussion. The theoretical basis, the case basis and the legislative basis for the construction of collateral obligation are emphatically analyzed. On this basis, we clarify other concepts related to collateral obligations, such as payment obligations and unreal obligations. By comparing the collateral obligation and other confusing concepts, the concept of collateral obligation is clearly defined. The third part puts forward the concept, representation and type of collateral obligation. Due to the openness and uncertainty of the content and scope of collateral obligation, scholars in various countries have different views on it. It is necessary for the author to define the concept and types of collateral obligation discussed in this paper, so as to facilitate the following discussion. Specifically, by combing and analyzing the viewpoints of German, Japanese, Taiwan and domestic scholars, the connotation and extension of collateral obligation discussed in this paper are defined. The fourth part discusses whether the debtor's breach of collateral obligation can lead to the occurrence of the creditor's legal discharge right. In German legislation, the amendment of German debt law makes it clear in article 324 that in a double service contract, if the debtor violates the obligations under article 241, paragraph 2 (that is, the accompanying obligation) and the maintenance of the contract will no longer be expected of the creditor, The creditor may terminate the contract. Japanese academic circles tend to take a negative attitude towards this issue, and hold that once the breach of collateral obligation constitutes the cause of the legal right of discharge, then the collateral obligation is factor debt. But there are also a few scholars positive attitude. Scholars in Taiwan have three attitudes to this: affirmative, negative and eclectic. Our country domestic scholar to this question discussion many, holds the affirmation to say more. After synthetically analyzing the viewpoint of the above mentioned comparative law, the author puts forward his own opinion, agrees with the compromise theory, and analyzes the conditions of occurrence of such right of rescission. The fifth part interprets and studies the effective case, and adapts two new cases on the basis of this case to support the argument of this paper: that is, only for the reason that the debtor can be held responsible. If the breach of collateral obligation is sufficient to cause the purpose of the contract to fail or the trust relationship on which the contract is based to be lost, the creditor may exercise the statutory right of rescission in Article 94, paragraph 4, of the contract Law.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】