绝对无效合同之财产返还研究

发布时间：2018-07-06 17:49

本文选题：不法合同 + 绝对无效　；参考：《吉林大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：绝对无效合同的财产返还问题的法律条文主要体现在《民法通则》第61条、《合同法》第58条、59条。据此可以看出，我国对无效合同的财产返还问题未对绝对无效与相对无效合同予以区别对待，而是采取的是统一的规定，即以返还为原则，以追缴为例外。此种对绝对无效合同的财产返还问题的处理方式，虽在一定程度上避免了“不法即合法”现象，但也存在着不足。一方面予以一律的返还财产，有纵容不法行为的嫌疑，且未考虑当事人的主观状态予以区别对待，有违司法公平公正。另一方面在民法中规定在不予返还的情形下予以追缴财产，存在公法过度干涉私法的嫌疑，有违民法之私法本性。由于我国在处理绝对无效合同的财产返还问题存在着上述问题，本文试图通过实证分析和比较分析的方法，对绝对无效合同在部分或全部履行的情形下应否予以返还财产，以及在不予返还财产时财产的归属问题予以讨论，并提出解决该问题的立法思路。本文第一部分指出我国在绝对无效合同的财产返还问题上的立法及司法实践中所存在的问题，并分析其成因。我国在该问题的立法中所存在的主要问题为未对绝对无效合同与相对无效合同予以区别对待，而采取的一体的规定，即以返还为原则，以追缴为例外；且在绝对无效的情形下采取的一律予以返还财产有纵容不法行为的嫌疑。此外，在民法中规定追缴财产规范有违民法之私法本性。在该问题的司法实践中，一方面绝对无效合同予以返还财产确有纵容不法行为的嫌疑；另一方面法院的判决并未以法律为依据，出现了不予返还财产的法外判决。上述立法及司法实践中所存在的问题究其根本原因，在于绝对无效合同应否予以返还财产正处在两难的境地，予以返还财产则有纵容不法行为的嫌疑，不予返还财产则有“不法即合法”的现象。本文第二部分论述我国在处理该问题的法律途径，并借鉴国外在处理该问题的有益之处。由于我国在绝对无效合同的财产返还问题在立法及司法上存在着不足，在对待绝对无效合同的财产返还问题上，建议采取“不予返还+例外”处理方式：在考虑当事人过错的情况下，对因违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定而无效的合同和因违反公序良俗而无效的合同的财产返还问题予以区别对待。（1）因违反法律、行政法规而无效的合同。①过错方（故意方）不得请求返还所为的给付，所为的给付予以追缴。追缴财产规范在民法中采取引致规范予以规定。②非过错方（不知情方）得请求返还所为的给付。（2）因违反公序良俗而无效的合同。①过错方（知情方）不得请求返还所为的给付，由受领方保有该财产。②非过错方得请求返还所为的给付。此处“过错”应理解为即合同当事人一方或双方明知或者应当知道所订立的合同是违反法律或违反公序良俗的，但却希望这种结果发生的主观心理状态。就比较法而论，在法律行为无效后的返还问题上，大多数国家并不在法律行为制度中作统一的规定，而是留给返还法去处理，这一模式的结果是在出现不法原因给付时，法律原则上就不允许返还。本文通过对国外立法及司法实践的考察发现，大陆法系及英美法系典型国家在绝对无效合同的财产返还问题上原则上不予返还财产，例外的予以返还。予以返还财产例外的情形，大都有当事人不具有过错或较另一方当事人过错低，即非同等过错。如大陆法系的德国、法国及我国的台湾地区。在英美法系中，也有对可耻的当事人不予救济的原则，且通常有对当事人的主观状态予以考虑，规定例外的予以返还财产。如美国、英国等。这些国家的立法例、立法理由及司法实践对我国的立法及司法具有借鉴意义。本文的第三部分为指出绝对无效合同以不予返还为原则，以返还为例外的处理方式，对我国立法及司法实践的价值。立法价值主要体现在在一定程度上解决了绝对无效合同应否予以返还财产的两难境地，不予返还财产在价值判断上有其更高的价值追求；以及我国在绝对无效法律行为制度的法律后果中处理不法原因给付的必要性。司法实践价值主要体现在避免了诉权的滥用，在一定程度上预防了不法行为的发生，，并有利于司法的公平、公正。
[Abstract]:The legal provisions of the restitution of the absolute invalidity contract are mainly embodied in the general rules of the civil law, the sixty-first articles of the civil law, the contract law, the fifty-eighth articles and the 59. Accordingly, we can see that the problem of the return of the property to the invalid contract is not treated differently from the absolute invalid and the relative invalid contract, but the unified regulation, that is, the return is the principle and the reversion is taken as the principle. The treatment of the restitution of the absolute null and void contract has avoided the phenomenon of "illegality" to a certain extent, but there are also shortcomings. On the one hand, it is unlawful to return the property, the suspicion of conniving the wrongful act, and not considering the subjective state of the parties, and it is contrary to judicial fairness. On the other hand, in the civil law, it is stipulated in the civil law that the property will be recovered in the case of non return, and the suspicion of excessive interference in private law in public law is contrary to the nature of the private law of the civil law. If the invalid contract shall be returned to the property in the case of partial or all performance, the question of the ownership of the property when the property is not returned, and the legislative ideas for solving the problem are put forward.
The first part of this paper points out the problems existing in the legislation and judicial practice of the property return of the absolutely invalid contract, and analyzes its causes. The main problem in the legislation of this problem is not to treat the absolute invalid contract and the relative invalid contract in the region, and the one in one is to return. It is also the principle that the recovery of the property is suspected of indulging the wrongful act in the case of absolute invalidity. In addition, in the civil law, the rules for the recovery of property are of the nature of private law in violation of the civil law. In the judicial practice of this question, on the one hand, the return of property to the absolute unproductive contract does have the wrongful act. On the other hand, the court's judgment did not take the law as the basis, and there was an extrajudicial decision not to return the property. The fundamental reason for the problems in the legislative and judicial practice is that the absolute invalid contract should be returned to the property in a dilemma, and the return of the property is suspected of indulging the wrongful act. No return of property is illegal or lawful.
The second part of this article discusses the legal way to deal with the problem in our country, and draws lessons from the advantages of foreign countries in dealing with the problem. Because there are shortcomings in the legislation and judicature of the property return problem in the absolutely invalid contract, it is suggested that the "no return + exception" should be taken to deal with the property return of the absolutely invalid contract. Mode: in the case of the parties' fault, the contract and the property return of a contract which is invalid because of violating the law, the compulsory regulations of the administrative law and the contract which is invalid because of the violation of the public order and good customs. (1) the contract which is invalid because of the violation of the law and the administrative regulations. (1) the fault Party (intentional party) may not ask for the return of the contract. Pay, to pay for the payment. The rules for the recovery of property are stipulated in the civil law. (2) the non fault Party (unwitting party) must request the return of the payment. (2) the contract which is invalid because of violation of public order and good customs. (1) the fault Party (informed party) may not request the return for the payment, the recipient is protected by the property. (2) non fault party In this case, the "fault" should be understood as the subjective psychological state that the party or party, either party or party, knows or should know that the contract is in violation of the law or in violation of the public order.
As far as the comparative law is concerned, most countries do not make unified provisions in the legal system, but leave the law to deal with the return of the legal act. The result of this model is that the legal principle is not allowed to return when the illegal reasons are paid. This article through the investigation of foreign legislation and judicial practice. It is found that the typical countries of the continental law system and the Anglo American law system do not return the property in principle on the return of the property of the absolutely invalid contract. The exception is to return the property. In the case of the return of the property, most of the parties are not at fault or are lower than the other party's fault, that is, non equal fault. For example, the German, French and me of the continental law system. In the Taiwan region of the country, in Anglo American law, there are also the principles of disgrace for disgraceful parties, and usually consider the subjective state of the parties and provide for the return of property, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and so on. The legislative and judicial practices of these countries are of reference to the legislation and judicature of our country.
The third part of this article is to point out the value of the absolute invalidity contract with the principle of not returning the return as the principle of return as the exception, and the value of the legislation and judicial practice in our country. The legislative value is mainly reflected in the two difficult situation that the absolute invalid contract should be returned to the property to a certain extent, and the property is not returned to the value judgment. Its higher value pursuit; and the necessity of handling unlawful causes in the legal consequences of the absolutely invalid legal act system. The value of judicial practice is mainly reflected in avoiding the abuse of the right of appeal, preventing the occurrence of wrongful acts to a certain extent, and is beneficial to the fairness and fairness of the law.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】