违约金调减制度研究

发布时间：2018-01-22 12:21

本文关键词： 违约金违约金调减权违约金调减程序　出处：《西南政法大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：违约金调减制度，是指在当事人约定的违约金数额过分高于违约造成的实际损失时，基于当事人的申请或法院依职权将违约金数额调减至适当数额的制度。针对这一重要制度，我国的立法太过简化，相关的理论研究也比较薄弱。本文以“违约金调减权及其诉讼实现”为中心，对违约金调减制度的相关问题进行了具体阐述。全文共分为三个部分：第一部分，，违约金调减制度的基础理论。主要分为三个方面：第一，我国违约金的具体性质：就违约金的本质属性而言，其是违约责任的一种具体形式。就违约金的功能属性而言，惩罚性违约金仅仅具有惩罚属性，而赔偿性违约金既可能存在只具有补偿属性的情形，又可能存在同时兼具补偿与惩罚双重属性的情形。就我国《合同法》第114条违约金的具体种类而言，应采取“整体论”的研究路径，坚持“损害预设”的判断标准，以该条第1款为研究本体，以其第2、3款为参考对象，进而得出其为补偿性违约金的结论。我国合同法未承认惩罚性违约金，也不应当承认惩罚性违约金。具体合同中违约金种类的认定，仍然需要坚持“损害预设”的判断标准，根据当事人的意思表示及其约定目的来判断违约金的具体性质。第二，关于违约金调减制度的法理基础：违约金调减制度既是违约金性质的必然要求，又是合同正义原则的现实需要，还是诚实信用原则的具体体现。第三，关于违约金调减制度的规范性质：违约金调减规范的任意性应受到其保护目的的限制，在发生支付效力前，当事人不得事先放弃违约金调减权。第二部分，违约金调减制度的实体构造。具体分为三个层次。首先，关于违约金调减权的性质，违约金调减权是一种形成权。其次，关于违约金调减权的发生要件：违约金调减权以“违约金过分偏高”为其发生条件。违约金是否“过分偏高”属于事实判断，其判断可分为“造成损失的认定”与“过分偏高的判定”两个步骤。“造成损失的认定”，既要包括可得利益损失，又要考虑非财产损失与履行情况，还应适用限制性规则。“过分偏高”的判断，应当是“违约金数额”与“应赔损失”（包含可得利益并考虑非财产损失与部分履行之后的实际损失减去限制性规则数额）相比而得出的判断。再次，关于违约金调减时的参考因素：对违约金进行“适当减少”趋向于价值判断，更多地取决于法官的自由裁量。法官需要结合合同的具体情形，考虑包括当事人的过错程度、当事人的缔约能力、违约方的支付能力、寻找替代交易的难易程度等相关因素，以得出合理的裁判结论。第三部分，违约金调减制度的程序操作。主要讨论三个问题。其一，关于程序的提起：违约金调减程序的启动权仅属于当事人，法院可以在特定情形下进行诉讼释明，但不得依职权自行提起。如果当事人在一审中明确表示不提出申请，或经过释明后仍然拒绝提出申请，可以视为其对违约金调减权的放弃。如果当事人没有明示放弃调减权，一审法院也没有进行诉讼释明，其在二审中提出时可以进行调解，调解不成则发回重审。违约金调减权应当以反诉或反请求的方式实现，以抗辩的方式来行使此种权利，不利于诉讼关系的具体厘清。关于当事人的诉讼便利问题，可以通过法官释明的方式加以解决。其二，关于诉讼中的举证：应当由请求减额的债务人负举证责任，在诉讼中不会涉及举证责任的移转。如果有证据证明守约方有相关证据且无正当理由拒不提供，可以直接认定违约金过分偏高的主张得以成立。当违约方及其诉讼代理人收集证据确有困难的，可以申请人民法院代为调查搜集。其三，关于诉讼中的释明：将释明作为法官的一项法定义务，走得太远，让法官完全脱身，也退步太多，采取《指导意见》的“折中主义”，将“释明”制度作为法官的一项职权，让法院得以自由裁量，也许是可取之道。《买卖合同司法解释》第27条第2款之处理，有剥夺当事人审级利益的嫌疑。法官应当就当事人的诉讼请求及其具体方式，证明责任的分配与举证程度，以及相关法律解释做出必要的释明，以便利当事人进行妥当的诉讼行为。
[Abstract]:Liquidated damages reduction system, is much higher than the actual loss caused by breach of contract in the amount of liquidated damages agreed upon by the parties, the parties or under the authority of a court of the amount of liquidated damages will be reduced to the appropriate amount of system based on. In view of this important system, the legislation is too simple, the relevant theoretical research is relatively weak. This "liquidated damages reduction right and procedural law" as the center, on issues related to the system of liquidated damages reduction were discussed in detail. The thesis is divided into three parts:
The first part, the basic theory of liquidated damages reduction system. Mainly divided into three aspects: first, in our country the specific nature of liquidated damages for breach of contract: the essence of gold, which is a specific form of liability for breach of contract breach. Functional properties of gold, punitive damages only has the nature of punishment, and the compensation penalty is possible only with compensation property situation, and there may be both compensation and punishment. The dual attributes of law > 114th < a breach of contract in our country specific types of gold, should take "research road holism" size, adhere to the "standard to judge the damage, by default" the first paragraph of this article is the research of ontology, with its 2,3 as the reference object, and then draw the compensatory payment conclusion. Our contract law does not admit punitive damages, should not admit punitive damages in the contract. The specific breach of contract That kind of gold, still need to adhere to the criteria of "damage Presupposition", according to the declaration of will of the parties and agreed to determine the specific nature of liquidated damages. Second, the legal basis for liquidated damages reduction system: breach of contract damages reduction system is the inevitable requirement of the nature of liquidateddamages, is the principle of contract justice reality. Or the embodiment of the principle of good faith. Third, specification about the nature of liquidated damages reduction system: breach of arbitrary damages reduction standard shall be limited by its protection purpose, in the event of payment effect before the parties shall give advance liquidated damages reduction power.
The second part, the entity structure of liquidated damages reduction system. It is divided into three levels. First of all, about the nature of liquidated damages reduction right, liquidated damages reduction right is a right of formation. Secondly, elements for liquidated damages reduction Rights: the right to liquidated damages reduction "excessively high" conditions for it whether the penalty. "Too high" belongs to the fact judgment, the judgment can be divided into two steps that damage and "judgment". The "found" excessive losses, should include profit loss, but also consider the non property loss and the fulfillment, also should apply restrictive rules "too high". The judgment should be "liquidated damages" and "compensable loss" (including interest and considering the non property loss and actual loss performance after subtracting the part of restrictive rules rather than the judgment amount) Again, the reference factors for liquidated damages reduction of damages for breach of "appropriate reduction" tend to value judgment and discretion depends more on the judge. The judge should according to specific conditions of the contract, including the degree of fault of the parties, the parties can force the breaching party's ability to pay for factors such as ease of replacement transaction, to make reasonable judgments.
The third part, the operation procedure of liquidated damages reduction system. Mainly discussed three issues. First, bring about the procedure: liquidated damages reduction program start right belongs to the parties, the court proceedings interpretation in certain circumstances, but not to mention authority. If the parties that do not apply in the first instance clearly, or through the interpretation after still refused to apply, can be regarded as the liquidated damages reduction right up. If the parties do not expressly waives the right to a trial court, nor the interpretation procedure, in the second instance to mediation, the mediation fails, the retrial right shall be liquidated damages reduction. In order to achieve the claim or counterclaim, by way of exercising the right of defense, to clarify the specific to litigation relations. On litigation facilitation issues by the parties, can judge interpretation way In order to solve. Second, the proof of litigation shall be made up by reducing the burden of the debtor claim amount, the transfer will not be involved in the proceedings the burden of proof. If there is evidence that the other party has evidence and refuses to provide, can directly identify the excessively high amount of liquidated claims to be established. When the party in breach and their legal representatives to collect evidence is indeed difficult, may apply to the people's court for investigating and collecting. Thirdly, the interpretation about the lawsuit: interpretation as a legal obligation of the judge, go too far, let the judges completely escape, also suffer too much, take "guidance on the" eclecticism "." the system as a function of judges, to let the court discretion, may be desirable. The contract for the sale of judicial interpretation of paragraph second > twenty-seventh, has deprived the trial level interests of the parties of the judges should be suspect. When is the request of the parties and the specific methods, distribution and degree of burden of proof responsibility, and legal interpretation to make the necessary interpretation of appropriate actions to facilitate the parties.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】