论通谋虚伪表示及其制度重构
发布时间：2018-08-17 12:41
【摘要】：通谋虚伪表示作为意思表示存在瑕疵的一种情形,这一概念最早由德国民法提出,目前已被瑞士、日本、韩国等许多大陆法系国家和地区所借鉴,并写入其民法之中。我国现行民法当中没有对其进行规定,理论界对这一制度的研究也并不充分,其中许多问题仍然存有争议。在司法实务中,由通谋虚伪表示所导致的一系列“阴阳合同”、“假按揭”等案例对于法院的审判造成一定难题。本文将对通谋虚伪表示相关理论进行详细梳理和介绍,对我国现行民法中的相关制度及其在司法实践中的效果进行分析检讨,并在此基础上,对我国民法中通谋虚伪表示制度的建构提出建议。本文的正文内容共分为四个部分。第一部分,通谋虚伪表示概述。作为意思表示瑕疵中的一种重要情形,通谋虚伪表示的瑕疵在于双方当事人都不希望该意思表示发生相应的法律后果,其构成包括有意思表示的存在、表示与真意不符以及表意人与对方通谋三个要素。通谋虚伪表示制度适用于有相对人的单方法律行为,但不应适用于经合法登记的身份行为。第二部分,通谋虚伪表示的效力。通过对其他国家立法例的分析可见,各国普遍规定,由于缺乏内心的真实意思,通谋虚伪表示在当事人之间无效。但是,在对第三人的信赖保护上,各国存在不同立法选择,其背后依据的法理基础为意思表示解释理论。多数国家规定不得对抗善意第三人,但在第三人范围、善意和恶意的判断以及不得对抗的理解上仍需进一步明确。第三部分,通谋虚伪表示的中国立法现状及司法实践。恶意串通行为和以合法形式掩盖非法目的通常被认为是我国民法中的通谋虚伪表示制度,但三者的内涵各不相同。通过案例分析可见,我国的两个特有制度在实践中的效果并不理想,易导致法律适用的不确定性,且可以为包括通谋虚伪表示制度在内的其他制度所替代。第四部分,我国通谋虚伪表示制度的重构。今后在制定民法典时,应当引入通谋虚伪表示制度,取消现行法中恶意串通行为和以合法形式掩盖非法目的的规定。在已经建立善意取得制度的前提下,不必写入不得对抗善意第三人的但书。在现行法的框架下,应暂且以《民法通则》第55条第二款对通谋虚伪表示的效力进行否定性评价。司法实践中,法院对于恶意串通行为和以合法形式掩盖非法目的适用应当有所限缩,将其作为兜底规定,优先寻求更有针对性的法律规定。
[Abstract]:The concept of collusion hypocrisy, which was first put forward by German civil law, has been used for reference by many civil law countries and regions such as Switzerland, Japan, South Korea and so on, and written into its civil law. There is no stipulation on it in the current civil law of our country, and the research on this system in the theoretical circle is not sufficient, and many of the problems are still controversial. In judicial practice, a series of "Yin and Yang contracts", "false mortgages" and other cases caused by conspiracy hypocrisy have caused some difficulties to the trial of the court. This article will comb and introduce the theory of conspiracy hypocrisy in detail, analyze and review the relevant system in the current civil law and its effect in judicial practice, and on this basis, This paper puts forward some suggestions on the construction of the system of collusion hypocrisy in the civil law of our country. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part is a summary of collusion hypocrisy. As an important part of the defects in the expression of will, the defect of conspiracy to hypocrisy lies in the fact that neither of the parties wishes the expression of intention to have corresponding legal consequences, and its composition includes the existence of the expression of interest. There are three elements to show that the meaning is not true and that the ideographer conspires with the other party. The system of collusion hypocrisy is applicable to unilateral legal acts with a relative party, but should not be applied to legally registered acts of identity. The second part, the effect of collusion hypocrisy. Through the analysis of other countries' legislation cases, it can be seen that, because of the lack of inner true meaning, conspiracy hypocrisy is invalid between the parties. However, different countries have different legislative choices in the protection of the third party's trust, which is based on the theory of interpretation of intention on the basis of legal theory. Most countries stipulate that bona fide third parties should not be confronted, but further clarification is needed on the scope of third parties, good faith and malicious judgment, and understanding of non-confrontation. The third part, the current situation of Chinese legislation and judicial practice of collusion hypocrisy. Malicious collusion and cover-up of illegal purpose in legal form are usually regarded as the hypocritical expression system of collusion in China's civil law, but the connotations of the three are different. Through the case analysis, we can see that the effect of the two special systems in practice is not ideal, which can easily lead to the uncertainty of the application of the law, and can be replaced by other systems, including the system of collusion and hypocrisy. The fourth part, the reconstruction of the system of collusion hypocrisy. In the future, the system of collusion hypocrisy should be introduced in the formulation of civil code, and the provisions of malicious collusion in the current law should be abolished and the illegal purpose should be covered up in the legal form. A proviso against bona fide third parties should not be written on the premise that a bona fide acquisition system has been established. Under the framework of current law, the second paragraph of Article 55 of the General principles of Civil Law should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the hypocrisy of collusion. In judicial practice, the court should limit the malicious collusion act and cover up the illegal purpose by the legal form, regard it as the bottom regulation, and seek more targeted legal provisions first.
【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
本文编号：2187662
[Abstract]:The concept of collusion hypocrisy, which was first put forward by German civil law, has been used for reference by many civil law countries and regions such as Switzerland, Japan, South Korea and so on, and written into its civil law. There is no stipulation on it in the current civil law of our country, and the research on this system in the theoretical circle is not sufficient, and many of the problems are still controversial. In judicial practice, a series of "Yin and Yang contracts", "false mortgages" and other cases caused by conspiracy hypocrisy have caused some difficulties to the trial of the court. This article will comb and introduce the theory of conspiracy hypocrisy in detail, analyze and review the relevant system in the current civil law and its effect in judicial practice, and on this basis, This paper puts forward some suggestions on the construction of the system of collusion hypocrisy in the civil law of our country. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part is a summary of collusion hypocrisy. As an important part of the defects in the expression of will, the defect of conspiracy to hypocrisy lies in the fact that neither of the parties wishes the expression of intention to have corresponding legal consequences, and its composition includes the existence of the expression of interest. There are three elements to show that the meaning is not true and that the ideographer conspires with the other party. The system of collusion hypocrisy is applicable to unilateral legal acts with a relative party, but should not be applied to legally registered acts of identity. The second part, the effect of collusion hypocrisy. Through the analysis of other countries' legislation cases, it can be seen that, because of the lack of inner true meaning, conspiracy hypocrisy is invalid between the parties. However, different countries have different legislative choices in the protection of the third party's trust, which is based on the theory of interpretation of intention on the basis of legal theory. Most countries stipulate that bona fide third parties should not be confronted, but further clarification is needed on the scope of third parties, good faith and malicious judgment, and understanding of non-confrontation. The third part, the current situation of Chinese legislation and judicial practice of collusion hypocrisy. Malicious collusion and cover-up of illegal purpose in legal form are usually regarded as the hypocritical expression system of collusion in China's civil law, but the connotations of the three are different. Through the case analysis, we can see that the effect of the two special systems in practice is not ideal, which can easily lead to the uncertainty of the application of the law, and can be replaced by other systems, including the system of collusion and hypocrisy. The fourth part, the reconstruction of the system of collusion hypocrisy. In the future, the system of collusion hypocrisy should be introduced in the formulation of civil code, and the provisions of malicious collusion in the current law should be abolished and the illegal purpose should be covered up in the legal form. A proviso against bona fide third parties should not be written on the premise that a bona fide acquisition system has been established. Under the framework of current law, the second paragraph of Article 55 of the General principles of Civil Law should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the hypocrisy of collusion. In judicial practice, the court should limit the malicious collusion act and cover up the illegal purpose by the legal form, regard it as the bottom regulation, and seek more targeted legal provisions first.
【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
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前8条
1 李源源;;论串通虚伪行为[J];法制与社会;2008年22期
2 高治;;通谋虚伪表示下合同的效力及第三人权益保护[J];人民司法;2011年03期
3 郭平宜;;论故意非真实意思表示[J];河北法学;2008年09期
4 王群;峗斌;;通谋虚伪行为探析[J];福建警察学院学报;2010年01期
5 崔聪聪;陈宁宁;;故意的意思表示不一致之比较[J];社会科学家;2008年09期
6 杨代雄;;恶意串通行为的立法取舍——以恶意串通、脱法行为与通谋虚伪表示的关系为视角[J];比较法研究;2014年04期
7 余能斌;;经济合同的概念及其法律特征[J];法学研究资料;1982年06期
8 ;[J];;年期
相关硕士学位论文 前7条
1 严小艳;通谋虚伪表示研究[D];中国政法大学;2009年
2 张萍;通谋虚伪表示研究[D];华东政法大学;2012年
3 魏然君;通谋虚伪表示研究[D];吉林大学;2014年
4 黄永焕;通谋虚伪表示研究[D];北京交通大学;2015年
5 黄若晨;论通谋虚伪表示及其制度重构[D];西南政法大学;2015年
6 万中亮;论虚伪意思表示的类型[D];武汉大学;2005年
7 王晨飞;通谋虚伪表示之无效与第三人之保护[D];华东政法大学;2012年
，本文编号：2187662
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2187662.html
