违约金过高调整的司法裁判研究

发布时间：2018-01-02 13:42

本文关键词：违约金过高调整的司法裁判研究　出处：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：违约金的司法裁判调整无论在法学理论界还是司法实践的领域都是备受关注的重要问题,违约金制度作为民商事交易过程中最常见的违约权利救济途径,对于担保合同的正常履行和防范合同履行过重中的风险具有举足轻重的作用和意义。但违约金作为私法领域中,缔约主体针对合同自由原则充分适用的产物,如不使用公权力予以适当的干预,难免会发生违约行为发生后当事人各方主体权力义务不均衡显失公平的局面,导致契约自由损害了契约正义的原则,由此说来对违约金调整制度进行设计并合理架构就显得尤为必要。我国目前的违约金调整制度规定的内容比较笼统,在司法裁判的适用过程中对法官自由裁量权的运用提出了极高的要求,因此在对裁判数据进行分析时,发现裁判差异化的情况较为普遍的存在。从我国司法裁判的公开数据进行搜集分析作为切入点,能够得出目前审判实践中关于举证责任分配、法官依职权调整违约金、关于损失应当如何认定等方面均存在诸多的问题,这些问题的存在造成了裁判结果出现了极大的差异化。虽然我国《合同法》的司法解释中对于违约金的调整规则进行了一定的论述,但该规定尚存在很多问题没有明确,以至于出现在司法裁判中对于法律规定的适用尺度不一致。本文先行对违约金调整的理论基础进行了分析和探究,研究了违约金调整制度的理论基础,来寻找违约金调整制度设立的正当性和必要性,确认这是由于违约金自身的性质和特点所决定的,需要通过对合同自由予以修正以实现合同正义,并对当事人之间的利益进行平衡以彰显交易公平。而后再进一步的分析我国违约金调整制度的规则和特点,对我国法律规定中违约金的功能进行探讨、性质进行分析,来推导出违约金调整制度应当考虑依据的司法原则和法官行使自由裁量权时应当把控的要素。结合大量的司法裁判案例数据进行分析,找到审判实务中时常出现的问题、矛盾,并分析这写矛盾背后的成因,来确认违约金调整制度应当树立惩罚性和补偿性两种性质予以区别调整,建议对违约金调整制度的裁判标准、举证责任分配等内容予以合理的完善。笔者认为,在充分的保障合同自由、保证合同正义的前提条件下,应当有节制并合理有序的对违约金保留司法干预的权利,经过了对司法裁判案例进行分析研究,查找到裁判差异化这一乱象出现的理论源头,提出违约金调整制度理论研究的必要性,建议从法学研究理论基础对违约金调整制度予以深化,并从司法裁判的进一步规范化的各个维度予以完善,对制度的适用标准进行统一,以确保我国合同履行过程中各方的利益均将得以保护。
[Abstract]:The adjustment of judicial judgment of liquidated damages is an important issue of great concern both in the field of legal theory and judicial practice. The system of liquidated damages is the most common way to remedy the right of breach of contract in the process of civil and commercial transactions. It plays an important role and significance in the normal performance of the guarantee contract and the prevention of the risk in the excessive performance of the contract. However, the liquidated damages are the product of the full application of the principle of freedom of contract in the field of private law. If the public power is not used to intervene properly, it will inevitably occur after the breach of contract, the parties' rights and obligations of the parties will be unbalanced and unfair, resulting in the freedom of contract to damage the principle of contractual justice. Therefore, it is particularly necessary to design and reasonably structure the adjustment system of liquidated damages. The contents of the current regulation system of liquidated damages in our country are quite general. In the process of application of the judicial decision, the application of the discretion of the judge put forward a very high demand, so in the analysis of the adjudication data. From the public data of judicial decision collection and analysis as a starting point, we can get the distribution of burden of proof in the current trial practice. The judge adjusts the breach penalty according to the function, and there are many problems about how to determine the loss and so on. The existence of these problems has resulted in great differences in the results of adjudication, although the adjustment rules of liquidated damages have been discussed in the judicial interpretation of contract Law of China. However, there are still many problems not clear, so that appear in the judicial adjudication of the applicable standards of the legal provisions are inconsistent. This paper first of all analyzes and explores the theoretical basis of the adjustment of liquidated damages. This paper studies the theoretical basis of the adjustment system of liquidated damages to find out the legitimacy and necessity of the establishment of the adjustment system of liquidated damages and confirms that it is determined by the nature and characteristics of the liquidated damages themselves. Need to amend the freedom of contract to achieve contract justice, and the interests of the parties to balance to highlight the fairness of the transaction. Then further analysis of the rules and characteristics of the system of adjustment of liquidated damages. This paper probes into the function and nature of the penalty for breach of contract in the legal provisions of our country. To deduce the adjustment system of liquidated damages should consider the basis of the judicial principles and judges exercise discretion should control the elements. Combined with a large number of judicial adjudication case data analysis. Find out the problems and contradictions that often appear in the trial practice, and analyze the causes behind the contradictions, to confirm that the adjustment system of liquidated damages should establish punitive and compensatory nature to be differentiated and adjusted. It is suggested that the judgment standard of the adjustment system of liquidated damages and the distribution of the burden of proof should be reasonably perfected. The author believes that under the premise of full protection of freedom of contract and guarantee of contract justice. We should reserve the right of judicial intervention to the penalty of breach of contract in a reasonable and orderly manner. Through the analysis and study of the cases of judicial judgment, we can find the theoretical source of the phenomenon of the judicial differentiation. This paper puts forward the necessity of theoretical research on the adjustment system of liquidated damages, and suggests that the adjustment system of liquidated damages should be deepened from the theoretical basis of legal research, and be perfected from the various dimensions of further standardization of judicial adjudication. This paper unifies the applicable standards of the system to ensure that the interests of all parties will be protected in the course of the performance of the contract in our country.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】