权利保护视角下的实际施工人制度思考

发布时间：2018-07-09 09:57

本文选题：实际施工人 + 主体　；参考：《东华理工大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：2004年最高院发布了法释[2004]14号文件,其中一大亮点在于通过赋予实际施工人在特殊情形下享有起诉发包方的权利,间接性的保障广大农民工群体的利益。但在建筑工程施工的实践过程中,实际施工人的类型却是多样化的。《解释》中只是简单的赋予了实际施工人权利,但实际施工人制度在理论层面还有很多问题仍然未得到解决。文章结合现有的法律法规以及相关法律理论,首先阐述了实际施工人制度的立法现状以及现实背景。其次,详细分析了实际施工人制度存在的问题。具体而言,在主体方面存在判断标准模糊、权利义务存在重叠复杂的问题;在权利主张方面,性质存在诸多争议;在权利受偿方面实际施工人的优先性地位受到质疑,工程价款的构成以及受偿的客体都存在争议;在权利实现方面,权利行使的期限存在冲突、方式的适用存在选择困难、权利的申报缺乏公示程序。针对上述的四方面问题,有针对性的提出了相应的建议。第一,在主体方面合理确定实际施工人的判断标准、明确相关主体的实际施工人地位;第二,在在权利主张方面,认定该权利的行使性质属于代位权,并提出实际施工人权利的行使应当受到合理的限制且在必要时可以转变权利的行使方式,通过其他方式来保障自身的合法权益。最后在相关案件的审判过程中应审慎追加案件当事人;第三,在权利受偿的顺序、范围及客体方面,应当确定实际施工人工程价款的优先性地位,同时强调应当把利润排除在受偿的范围内,按照合同的具体约定来进行折价的工程结算,对于受偿的客体范围应当具体问题具体分析,区别对待;第四,在权利实现方面,认为应当分阶段进行权利的实现,同时规定发包人的责任。除此之外,借助登记公示制度以及借鉴国外的支付担保制度来保障相关施工人员权利的及时受偿。最后在结语中强调,实际施工人制度是时代的产物,受制于各种形势,存在着现实的局限性。期待建筑工程市场在未来能够步入规范化和法治的轨道。
[Abstract]:In 2004, the Supreme Court issued the Law interpretation [2004] 14 document, one of the highlights of which is that by giving the actual constructors the right to sue the contracting parties under special circumstances, the interests of the vast number of migrant workers are indirectly protected. However, in the practice of construction, the types of actual constructors are diversified. In explanation, the rights of the actual constructors are simply given, but there are still many problems in the theory of the actual constructor system that have not been solved. Combined with the existing laws and regulations and relevant legal theories, this paper first expounds the current legislative situation and realistic background of the actual constructor system. Secondly, the problems existing in the actual constructor system are analyzed in detail. In particular, there are vague standards of judgment in the subject, overlapping of rights and obligations, disputes over the nature of claims, and questioning of the priority of the actual constructor in terms of compensation of rights. The composition of the project price and the object of the compensation are all disputed. In the aspect of the realization of the right, the time limit of the right exercise is in conflict, the application of the way is difficult to choose, and the declaration of the right lacks the public procedure. In view of the above four aspects of the problem, targeted to put forward the corresponding recommendations. First, in the aspect of the subject, the judgment standard of the actual constructor should be reasonably determined, and the status of the actual constructor of the relevant subject should be clarified. Secondly, in the aspect of claims, the nature of the exercise of the right should be considered as a subrogation right. It also puts forward that the exercise of the rights of the actual constructors should be reasonably restricted and, if necessary, can be changed to protect their legitimate rights and interests by other means. Finally, in the trial process of the relevant cases, we should carefully add the parties to the case; third, in the order, scope and object of the compensation of the right, we should determine the priority status of the actual constructor's project price. At the same time, it is emphasized that profit should be excluded from the scope of compensation, and the project settlement of discount should be carried out in accordance with the specific agreement of the contract, and the scope of the object of the compensation should be analyzed and treated differently. Fourthly, in terms of the realization of rights, It is believed that the realization of the rights should be carried out in stages, and the responsibility of the contractor shall be stipulated at the same time. In addition, by means of public registration system and foreign payment guarantee system, the relevant construction personnel rights can be compensated in time. Finally, the conclusion emphasizes that the actual constructor system is the product of the times, subject to various situations, there are practical limitations. Look forward to the construction engineering market in the future can enter the track of standardization and rule of law.
【学位授予单位】：东华理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】