虚假表示与恶意串通问题研究
发布时间：2018-08-22 12:56
【摘要】：《民法总则》同时规定了虚假表示与恶意串通,一新一旧,前者并没有取代后者。二者均为民事法律行为无效的原因,但法理基础并不一样。在虚假表示场合,法律之所以使民事法律行为无效,是因为双方当事人均没有受其拘束的意旨。而在恶意串通场合,则须区分情形分别说明。在行为人为一方当事人的代理人场合,其与相对人恶意串通,损害被代理人合法权益,是因为对于被代理人而言该民事法律行为不符合其真实意思,存在瑕疵。在行为人为当事人场合,尽管就其及相对人的意思表示而言均无瑕疵,法律使之无效,则是由于存在损害他人合法权益的主观恶意。至于一方当事人与第三人串通的情形,原则上不在恶意串通规则的规范范围之内,《拍卖法》等特别法另有规定的依其规定,如果构成第三人欺诈,可依《民法总则》第149条发生撤销权。民事法律行为因虚假意思表示而无效属于绝对无效,善意第三人的保护依《物权法》第106条等其他法律规定处理。
[Abstract]:The General principles of Civil Law also provide for false representation and malicious collusion, new and old, the former does not replace the latter. Both are the reasons for the invalidity of civil legal acts, but the legal basis is not the same. On the occasion of false representation, the reason why the law invalidates the civil legal act is that neither party is bound by its intention. In the case of malicious collusion, it is necessary to distinguish the circumstances respectively. In the case where the actor is a party's agent, his malicious collusion with the relative party damages the legitimate rights and interests of the principal, because the civil legal act does not accord with its true meaning and has defects to the principal. In the case where the actor is a party, although there is no defect in the expression of his or her intention and that the law makes it invalid, it is due to the existence of subjective malice that damages the legitimate rights and interests of others. As for the case of collusion between a party and a third party, in principle, it is not within the scope of the rules of malicious collusion. In accordance with the provisions of the special law, such as the auction Law, if it constitutes fraud by a third party, The right of rescission may occur in accordance with Article 149 of the General provisions of the Civil Code. Civil legal act is absolutely invalid because of false expression of will, and the protection of bona fide third party is dealt with according to Article 106 of Real right Law and other laws.
【作者单位】： 清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923
[Abstract]:The General principles of Civil Law also provide for false representation and malicious collusion, new and old, the former does not replace the latter. Both are the reasons for the invalidity of civil legal acts, but the legal basis is not the same. On the occasion of false representation, the reason why the law invalidates the civil legal act is that neither party is bound by its intention. In the case of malicious collusion, it is necessary to distinguish the circumstances respectively. In the case where the actor is a party's agent, his malicious collusion with the relative party damages the legitimate rights and interests of the principal, because the civil legal act does not accord with its true meaning and has defects to the principal. In the case where the actor is a party, although there is no defect in the expression of his or her intention and that the law makes it invalid, it is due to the existence of subjective malice that damages the legitimate rights and interests of others. As for the case of collusion between a party and a third party, in principle, it is not within the scope of the rules of malicious collusion. In accordance with the provisions of the special law, such as the auction Law, if it constitutes fraud by a third party, The right of rescission may occur in accordance with Article 149 of the General provisions of the Civil Code. Civil legal act is absolutely invalid because of false expression of will, and the protection of bona fide third party is dealt with according to Article 106 of Real right Law and other laws.
【作者单位】： 清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 鲁夫;“引人误解的虚假表示”杂谈[J];工商行政管理;1997年15期
2 鲁夫;“引人误解的虚假表示”杂谈(续)[J];工商行政管理;1997年16期
3 清风;;受害人可获得哪些双倍或多倍赔偿[J];农村新技术;2012年03期
4 鲁夫;反向仿冒浅论(续)[J];工商行政管理;1998年16期
相关重要报纸文章 前3条
1 江苏省无锡市宜兴工商局 沈军 周士明;浅谈虚假表示案件的认定及处理对策[N];中国工商报;2013年
2 案例编写人 江苏省高级人民法院 沈燕;民事法律行为虚假表示真意保留的判断[N];人民法院报;2010年
3 记者 贾s，
本文编号：2197160
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2197160.html
