法律行为无效原因之规范适用

发布时间：2018-04-21 20:48

本文选题：虚假意思表示 + 恶意串通　；参考：《华东政法大学学报》2017年06期

【摘要】：我国《民法总则》第146条、第153条和第154条分别规定了虚假意思表示、违背公序良俗和恶意串通损害他人利益的法律行为无效,导致这三种无效原因的关系出现混乱。实际上,虚假意思表示与恶意串通之情形应包含于"违背善良风俗"之范畴内。从比较法上看,也无法找到单列恶意串通为法律行为无效原因之做法。基于此,我国在具体的法律适用上,应采用限缩原则解释"恶意串通"和"虚假意思表示",扩大"善良风俗"之适用范围,使"违背公序良俗"成为认定虚假意思表示和恶意串通损害他人利益之"一般条款"。当三种无效原因"竞合"时,赋予当事人选择权。同时,该三条规范与我国《侵权责任法》第2条及第6条之规定出现法条竞合时,也应做技术性处理。
[Abstract]:In our country, the general rules of the civil law, the 146th articles, the 153rd and the 154th stipulates the false meaning, which are ineffective in violation of the public order, good customs and malicious collusion, which lead to the confusion of the relationship between the three invalid reasons. In fact, the case of the false meaning expression and the malevolent connection should be included in the "violation of good customs". On the basis of comparative law, it is impossible to find the cause of the invalid unilateral collusion as a reason for the invalid legal act. Based on this, China should use the principle of limited contraction to explain the "malicious collusion" and "false meaning expression" in the application of the specific law, expand the scope of the application of the "good custom" and make the "violation of public order and good custom" as a false meaning of identification and The "general clause" that malicious collusion damages the interests of others. When the three invalid reasons "concurrence", the parties shall be given the right to choose. At the same time, the three regulations should also be handled technically when the law article is competing with the provisions of the law of China, the law of tort, the second and the 6.

【作者单位】：中国政法大学;
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】