效力性强制性规定的认定

发布时间：2018-07-09 17:16

本文选题：合同无效 + 效力性强制性规定　；参考：《河南师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着我国市场经济的全面发展,我国合同无效面临着理论和实践的双重考验。其中,《合同法》第52条第5项中的规定,对认定合同无效起着重要作用。我国学者开始较多讨论强制规定理论,但是,该法条在具体适用时仍然会出现较多问题。如何在具体的司法审判活动中认定效力性强制性规定是需要解决的现实问题,这个问题的提出,对中国的强制性规定理论是个不小的测试,很大程度上也是在对法官的勇气和智慧进行的考验。文章以案例为切入点,主要从效力性强制性规定的认定困境、比较法考察、认定标准三方面进行阐释,全文共分为五章,具体内容如下:首先,以中国裁判文书网中的一个案件为切入点,引出现实司法实践中对于效力性强制性规定认定的问题。其次,阐述了对效力性强制性规定的认定困境,主要从理论认识分歧和立法规定缺失两方面对其加以分析。由于其本身的复杂性,在理论上,各学者各执一词,没有统一的认定标准,分别在强制性规定的称谓、范围、效力分类、评判标准等方面存在分歧;在立法上,比较抽象,没有具体的认定标准和方法。然后,从比较法的角度,阐述不同国家或地区关于效力性强制性规定的有关规定。主要介绍了罗马法、德国法、日本法及我国台湾地区法律的规定,从中借鉴吸收对我国适用的一些经验教训。接着,借鉴外国法律中的立法经验并结合我国司法实践中的典型案例,从中总结解决效力性强制性规定认定问题的一般规律,进而尝试提出一些认定该规定的标准。在该认定标准中,首要考虑的是规则解释法。然而,在法律规定存在冲突或没有相关规定时就需要考虑运用价值衡量的方法,判断出哪种权益更需要进行保护。个案事实类型化法是具体个案的分类,在上述规定均难以识别效力性强制性规定的情况下,可以运用此种方法进行判断。个案事实类型化法不仅是一种认定标准,还具有检验前两个方法的作用。运用法律和具体案情相结合的方法作为认定标准,使得认定更加准确、合理。具体的认定是这样的:第一,规则解释法,法律解释是适用法律的必备条件。在规则解释法中,按照时间的先后顺序,分别需要考虑的是文义解释、体系解释和目的解释。其中,文义解释缩小认定条文的范围;体系解释明晰在法律体系中条款的真正含义;目的解释寻找条文的目的,探其本旨。第二,价值判断法,进行价值衡量,在各种不同的利益中寻求要保护的最大利益。需要注意的是在各原则权衡中,为树立保障私法的理念,鼓励交易是在判定时应具备的观点,其次需考虑的是意思自治,最后才应选择的是公共利益。第三,个案事实的类型化法,从具体的案件本身入手,对案件的具体情况进行分类,文章以调整对象为标准分为资格型、标的型、批准型,该分类适用时没有先后顺序,只需把相应案例对号入座,然后和相应的法律规定进行对接,从而做出正确的判断。最后,文章又回归例子,剖析在该案的审理中运用了怎样的理论,阐发法官对于案件的裁判标准,并结合认定标准进行剖析,希望对该理论的司法适用提供一定的参考。
[Abstract]:With the overall development of China's market economy, China's contract ineffectiveness is faced with the dual test of theory and practice. Among them, the provisions of the contract law of the fifty-second articles and fifth items play an important role in identifying the invalidity of the contract. How to identify the mandatory mandatory provisions in the specific judicial activities is a practical problem that needs to be solved. The question is put forward, and it is a test to China's mandatory provision theory. To a large extent, it is also a test of the courage and wisdom of the judge. The article takes the case as a breakthrough point, mainly from the effective mandatory rules. The determination predicament, the comparative law investigation and the standard of identification are explained in three aspects. The full text is divided into five chapters, and the specific contents are as follows: first, taking a case in the Chinese referee's net as the breakthrough point, the question of the determination of the mandatory mandatory provisions in the practical judicial practice is elicited. Secondly, the identification of the mandatory mandatory provisions is expounded. The dilemma, mainly from two aspects of the theoretical understanding and the lack of legislative provisions. Due to its complexity, in theory, the scholars have no unified identification standards, and there are differences in the terms of appellation, scope, effectiveness classification, evaluation criteria and so on. And then, from the perspective of comparative law, the relevant provisions concerning the mandatory mandatory provisions in different countries or regions are expounded. The provisions of Rome law, German law, Japanese law and Taiwan region law are introduced, and some lessons learned from the application of the law are drawn from them. Then, the foreign laws are used for reference. According to the legislative experience and the typical cases in our judicial practice, the general rule of solving the problem of cognizance of the mandatory mandatory provisions is summed up, and then some standards are tried to be put forward. In this standard, the rule interpretation is the first consideration. However, it is necessary when there is a conflict or no relevant provisions in the law. It is necessary to consider using the method of value measurement to judge which rights and interests need to be protected. The case factual typization is the classification of specific cases. This method can be used to judge if the above provisions are difficult to identify the mandatory mandatory provisions. The case factual classification is not only a standard, but also a test. The role of the first two methods. Using the method of combining the law with the specific circumstances as the criteria, making the identification more accurate and reasonable. The specific identification is such: first, the rule interpretation, the legal interpretation are the necessary conditions for the application of the law. In the rule of interpretation, according to the order of time, we need to consider the meaning of the article. Interpretation, system interpretation and purpose interpretation. Among them, the interpretation of the text narrowed the scope of the provisions; the system explained the true meaning of the provisions in the legal system; the purpose explained the purpose of finding the provisions, and explored its purpose. Second, the value judgment method, the value measurement, the maximum interests to be protected in various interests. In the balance of the principles, in order to establish the idea of protecting private law and encourage the transaction to be found in the judgment, the second is to consider the autonomy of the meaning. In the end, the public interest should be chosen. Third, the typization of the case facts, from the specific case itself, the classification of the specific cases, and the adjustment of the article. As the standard is divided into the qualification, the standard type and the approval type, there is no sequence in the application of the classification. It only needs to take the corresponding case to the seat, and then butt with the corresponding law, and then make the correct judgment. Finally, the article returns to examples to analyze the theory of the case in the case and explain the judge's case. The standard of adjudication is analyzed in combination with the standard of identification, hoping to provide some reference for the judicial application of the theory.
【学位授予单位】：河南师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】