论冒用他人名义实施之行为的法律效果

发布时间：2018-06-06 17:55

本文选题：冒用他人名义 + 法律漏洞　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：冒用他人名义的行为多有发生,但无论是在理论界还是在司法实践中对于该当行为的法律效果存在争议。有鉴于此,本文拟探寻冒用他人名义实施之行为的法律效力,以期对司法实践提供些许帮助。除绪论外,正文包括四个部分。第一部分主要论述有关冒用他人名义实施之行为的法律漏洞和裁判纷争,以及学理上探求该种行为适用规范的尝试。现行民事法律体系并没有提供调整冒用他人名义实施之行为的规范,并且该当案件类型并不属于法律不拟调整的“法外空间”也不属于立法者“有意义的沉默”,故而于此存在法律漏洞。规范的缺失导致了司法实践的混乱,关于冒用他人名义实施之行为的案件存有两种截然相反的判决结果以及多达11种的判决理由。通过文献的梳理发现国内理论界对于此问题争议的核心在于该行为能否适用代理制度的规定,主要包括能否适用无权代理以及表见代理制度,也在于该行为能否适用无权处分及善意取得制度,甚至有学者将该行为纳入到涉及犯罪的民事行为的概念下进行分析。对此问题研究较早的德国学界主要在代理这一部分根据不同主体各异的主观状态的排列组合来探讨冒用他人名义实施之行为的法律后果。第二部分主要在于论述冒用他人名义实施之行为的法律结构,冒名人冒用了名义载体人的名义并缔结了法律行为,但是名义载体人对于其名义被冒用并不知情。此部分还将冒用他人名义实施之行为与“冒名行为”、“借名行为”以及“使用未特定化的他人名义实施之行为”的概念区分开来,以明确划定本文拟讨论的范围。最后将冒用他人名义实施之行为做了类型化的区分。第三部分主要阐述冒用他人名义实施之行为的成立及效力问题。首先将冒用他人名义实施之行为与我国民法体系中的代理制度进行了严格的区分,抛弃了现今所采用的选择性的制度比较的方法,以意思表示作为工具分析的冒用他人名义实施之行为成立。主体名义对交易没有影响的法律行为以及主体名义虽然对于交易影响很大,但是相对人明知对方在冒用他人名义的行为成立在冒名人和相对人之间;相对人不知对方在冒用他人名义的行为成立在名义载体人和相对人之间。相对人明知对方在冒用他人名义的行为一般有效,但损害了国家、集体或者第三人利益的,无效。相对人不知对方在冒用他人名义的行为的效力取决于名义载体人的意思而定。第四部分论述了冒用他人名义实施之行为中的物权变动问题。相对人明知对方在冒用他人名义的行为,如若以冒名人自己的财产履行合同则当然发生物权变动,若以他人的财产来履行合同则处分行为的效力依据无权处分规范而取决于物之所有权人的意思,如果损害了国家、集体或者第三人利益导致负担行为无效的,因处分行为有因性的考量而不发生物权变动。相对人不知对方冒用他人名义缔结的负担行为下的处分行为乃是冒名处分行为,因为该行为并不是无权处分,也不符合善意取得制度规范的对象,故而不适用善意取得制度,亦不能以尚未成为民法普遍原则的权利外观责任规则肯定善意相对人取得涉案不动产的请求。
[Abstract]:In view of this, this article intends to explore the legal effect of the act of impersonation in the name of others, with a view to providing some help to judicial practice. In addition to the introduction, the text includes four parts. It mainly discusses the legal loopholes and disputes about the act of impersonation in the name of other people, and the attempt to explore the applicable norms of the act. The current civil law system does not provide a standard for the adjustment of the act of impersonation in the name of others, and the type of the case does not belong to the "law outer space" that is not to be adjusted by law. "Room" does not belong to the legislative "meaningful silence", so there is a loophole in the law. The lack of norms leads to the confusion of judicial practice. There are two opposite verdict results and 11 kinds of reasons for the act of impersonation in the name of others. The core of the dispute lies in whether the act can apply the provisions of the agency system, mainly including the application of unauthorized agency and the system of apparent agency. It also lies in the application of the act of unauthorized disposition and the system of good faith acquisition, and even the analysis of the behavior under the concept of civil behavior involving crime. The early study of the German academic community mainly discusses the legal consequences of the act of impersonating others in the name of others according to the arrangement and combination of the different subjective states of different subjects. The second part is mainly about the legal structure of the act of impersonating others in the name of others. The impostor uses the name of the nominal carrier and concludes the name of the act of impersonating others in the name of others. A legal act, but a nominal carrier is impersonated and unaware of its name. This part will also distinguish between the act of impersonating the name of another and the concept of "impersonation", "the act of borrowing" and "the act of using the unspecified others in the name of others", in order to clearly define the scope of the discussion in this article. The third part mainly expounds the establishment and effectiveness of the act of impersonating others in the name of others. First, the act of impersonating others in the name of others is strictly distinguished from the agency system in the civil law system of our country, and the selective system comparison method used today is abandoned. The act of impersonation in the name of the other person as a tool analysis is established. The legal act which does not affect the transaction in the name of the subject and the name of the subject have great influence on the transaction, but the relative person knows that the other person's behavior in the name of other person is founded between the celebrities and the relative people; the opposite person is not aware that the other person is using it. The act of the name of another is established between the nominal carrier and the relative person. The relative person knows that the other person's behavior in the name of another person is generally valid, but it is ineffective in the interests of the state, the collective or the third party. The relative person does not know that the other party's action in the name of other people's name is determined by the meaning of the nominal carrier. The fourth part is determined by the relative person. The question of the change of real right in the act of impersonation in the name of another person is discussed. The relative person knows that the other person's behavior in the name of another person is used in the name of another person. If the property is performed by the celebrity's own property, the change of real right will occur, and the effectiveness of the act of disposing of the contract in the case of other people's property depends on the norm of the unauthorized disposition. The right person means that if the interests of the state, the collective or the third party cause the burden of the act to be invalid, it is not possible to change the right to biological rights because of the consideration of the disposition of the act. The object that does not conform to the rules of the good faith acquisition system, therefore, does not apply to the system of bona fide acquisition, nor does it be able to affirm the request for the real estate of the relative person to be involved in the real estate in good faith by the rule of appearance liability that has not yet become the universal principle of civil law.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】