不可抗辩情形下合同撤销研究

发布时间：2018-04-15 15:50

本文选题：不可抗辩条款 + 解除权　；参考：《大连海事大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国保险业蓬勃发展的背景下,保险公司拒赔的现象却时有发生,由于严格的陈述与保证制度,保险公司一旦发现投保人违反如实告知义务便可以径行解除合同。为改变这一现状,限制保险人解除权,提升保险人的形象,促进保险市场的拓展,立法者在《中华人民共和国保险法》(以下简称《保险法》)的修正案引入了不可抗辩条款。本文围绕着"符合不可抗辩情形下的合同撤销"展开,共分三部分。第一部分是不可抗辩条款的概述,主要介绍了不可抗辩条款的相关背景知识,包括不可抗辩条款的定义、历史发展和法理基础,并阐述了诚实信用原则、信赖利益保护理论和谈判能力理论作为不可抗辩条款的法律基础的原因,为第三部分对问题的分析讨论进行了理论的铺垫。第二部分主要介绍了目前国内外学者和法院对于符合不可抗辩情形下合同撤销问题的主要观点及理由。主要分为两种观点,即肯定保险人拥有撤销权和否定保险人拥有撤销权。第三部分为解决问题部分。第三部分开头便明确了本文观点——符合不可抗辩条款下,不得允许保险人撤销合同。首先对不可抗辩条款的"不可抗辩"进行了功能性的比较,得出结论认为不可抗辩实为不可解除;其次,在对《合同法》上的解除权与撤销权进行了比较,得出结论认为二者根本上属于同一权利;再次,根据前述结论,得出二者属于特殊与一般的关系,因而应当适用"特别法优于一般法",从而排除撤销权的适用;再次,通过黄茂荣先生所提出的相对的"特别与一般"的认定方法,对解除权与撤销权的构成要件和法律效果进行了对比,得出二者符合相对的特殊与一般的关系,既对前—部分的结论进行了证成,又对本文的观点进行了证成;最后,通过假设允许保险人撤销合同下,对保险活动的可能造成的影响进行推理,得出结论认为若如此将会导致不可抗辩条款的立法目的落空,从而完成对保险人不得撤销保险合同的观点的证成。
[Abstract]:Under the background of the booming development of insurance industry in our country, the phenomenon of insurance company refusing to compensate occurs from time to time. Due to the strict statement and guarantee system, the insurance company can terminate the contract once it finds that the policyholder violates the obligation to inform truthfully.In order to change this situation, limit the insurer's right of rescission, promote the image of the insurer and promote the expansion of the insurance market, the legislator has introduced the non-defensible clause in the amendment of the Insurance Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Law).This paper is divided into three parts, focusing on contract revocation in accordance with the circumstances of non-plea.The first part is an overview of the non-defensible clause, which mainly introduces the relevant background knowledge of the non-defensible clause, including the definition, historical development and legal basis of the non-defensible clause, and expounds the principle of good faith.The theory of the protection of trust interests and the theory of negotiation ability as the legal basis of the non-defensible clause pave the way for the analysis and discussion of the third part.The second part mainly introduces the main views and reasons of the current domestic and foreign scholars and courts on the issue of contract revocation in accordance with the non-defensible circumstances.It is mainly divided into two viewpoints, that is, affirming the insurer has the right of rescission and denying the insurer the right of revocation.The third part is the problem solving part.At the beginning of the third part, it is clear that the insurer shall not be allowed to rescind the contract in accordance with the non-defensible clause.First of all, the author compares the function of the "incontestable" of the indefensible clause, and concludes that the indefensible is in fact irrevocable; secondly, it makes a comparison between the right of rescission and the right of rescission in the contract Law.It is concluded that the two belong to the same right fundamentally; thirdly, according to the foregoing conclusion, it is concluded that the two belong to a special and general relationship, so that "Lex specialis is superior to general law" should be applied, thus excluding the application of the right of rescission; again,By means of the relative "special and general" identification method proposed by Mr. Huang Maorong, this paper compares the constitutive requirements and legal effects of the right of rescission and revocation, and draws a conclusion that the two are in accordance with the relative special and general relationship.It not only proves the conclusion of the preceding part, but also proves the viewpoint of this paper. Finally, under the assumption that the insurer is allowed to cancel the contract, the possible impact of insurance activities is inferred.The conclusion is that this will lead to the failure of the legislative purpose of the non-defensible clause, thus completing the proof of the insurer's view that the insurer cannot revoke the insurance contract.
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.284

【相似文献】