金融机构违反适当性义务的民事责任

发布时间：2018-09-09 11:32

【摘要】：作为监管法律存在的适当性规范，其仅有的行政处罚的违法后果表现出对金融机构行为约束及投资者保护的无力性。对投资者而言，私法上的救济才是最好的保障。欲真正发挥适当性制度对投资者保护的功能，就要确定金融机构违反适当性义务应承担的民事责任。较于立法层面上直接赋予投资者独立请求权的期待，在现行法律体系内，通过法律解释寻找可以被投资者援引来寻求救济的法律渊源更能回应投资者保护的现实需求。与我国立法模式相同的国家的司法实践经验启示我们：法律体系中并不缺乏可以用来调整投资者与金融机构适当性纠纷的法律渊源，而是需要我们拓展视野去发现。在我国现阶段，追究金融机构违反适当性义务的民事责任来为投资者提供救济不是立法完善的问题，而是一个司法裁判的问题。本文除引言外，，正文共分为四个部分，第一部分从两条不同的路径分析金融机构适当性义务的民事属性，寻找投资者得以请求金融机构承担违反适当性义务民事责任的法律依据。首先，在公、私法应该是一种动态接轨的关系的认识基础上，通过对具有公法属性的适当性规范是保护性法律的识别，实现适当性规范确立的公法义务向私法义务的转化。其次，通过对民法的诚实信用原则与适当性义务之法理内涵的对比，适当性义务可以解释为基于诚信原则配置给金融机构的一项注意义务。第二部分是对金融机构违反适当性义务的民事责任性质的分析。无论是公法义务向私法义务的转化还是基于诚信原则下的交易注意义务的配置，金融机构的适当性义务都属于法定义务，也因此决定了金融机构违反适当性义务民事责任的性质为侵权责任或者缔约过失责任。通过当事人的合意将法定的适当性义务转化为约定义务会导致金融机构违约责任的产生，但是基于金融商品交易合同的格式化，违约责任在理论上有存在的可能性。第三部分通过对金融机构适当性义务边界的确定，为认定金融机构适当性义务的违反提供可供参考的标准。金融机构适当性义务与买者自负原则的平衡的结果是金融机构对于投资者经济上的自杀行为没有救援义务。金融机构仅在投资者因交涉能力不平等而依赖于金融机构专业知识技能的场合负有适当性义务，而投资者个人属性的不同会差异化金融机构的法律责任及行为规范，包括适当性义务在内。第四部分结合我国司法实践的相关案例，发现我国法院在审理因适当性引起的金融机构与投资者的纠纷时，存在以下几个问题：法院缺乏对裁判依据的主要发现，以致于对纠纷简单裁判或拒绝裁判；法院普遍奉行买者自负原则，使投资者很难胜诉从而获得救济；法院未认识到当事人之间合意的虚化性，对投资者意思表示的认定违背实质公平。
[Abstract]:As an appropriate norm of regulatory law, the illegal consequences of the only administrative punishment show the weakness of financial institutions' behavior constraints and investor protection. For investors, private law relief is the best guarantee. It is necessary to determine the civil liability of financial institutions for violating the obligation of appropriateness in order to give full play to the function of the system of appropriateness in protecting investors. Compared with the expectation of directly endowing the independent claim to investors in the legislative level, in the current legal system, seeking legal sources that can be invoked by investors to seek relief through legal interpretation can better respond to the actual needs of investor protection. The experience of judicial practice in countries with the same legislative model reveals us that the legal system is not short of the legal sources which can be used to adjust the appropriate disputes between investors and financial institutions, but needs us to expand our vision to find out. At the present stage in our country, investigating the civil liability of financial institutions for violating the obligation of appropriateness to provide relief to investors is not a matter of perfect legislation, but a problem of judicial decision. In addition to the introduction, the text is divided into four parts. The first part is to analyze the civil attributes of the appropriate obligation of financial institutions from two different paths. Find the legal basis on which investors can ask financial institutions to assume civil liability for breach of proper obligations. First of all, on the basis of the understanding that public and private law should be a kind of dynamic connection, through the recognition that the proper norm with the attribute of public law is the protective law, the obligation of public law established by the norm of appropriateness can be transformed into the obligation of private law. Secondly, through the comparison between the principle of good faith in civil law and the legal connotation of the obligation of appropriateness, the obligation of appropriateness can be interpreted as a duty of care allocated to financial institutions on the basis of the principle of good faith. The second part is the analysis of the nature of civil liability of financial institutions violating the obligation of appropriateness. Whether it is the transformation of public law obligation to private law obligation or the disposition of transaction duty of care based on the principle of good faith, the appropriate obligation of financial institution belongs to the legal obligation. Therefore, the nature of financial institution's civil liability for breach of proper obligation is tort liability or contractual negligence liability. The legal obligation of appropriateness can be transformed into the contractual obligation by the consent of the parties. However, based on the formatting of the contract of financial commodity trading, the liability for breach of contract has the possibility to exist theoretically. The third part provides a reference standard for the determination of financial institution's obligation of appropriateness through the determination of the boundary of the financial institution's obligation of appropriateness. The balance between appropriate obligation of financial institutions and the principle of buyer's conceit is that financial institutions have no obligation to rescue investors from financial suicide. Financial institutions only have an appropriate obligation to rely on the professional knowledge and skills of financial institutions because of the unequal bargaining ability of investors, and different individual attributes of investors will differentiate the legal responsibility and behavior of financial institutions. Including due diligence obligations. The fourth part combines the relevant cases of judicial practice of our country, finds that the court in our country has the following problems when trying the disputes between financial institutions and investors caused by appropriateness: the court lacks the main findings on the basis of adjudication. As a result of simple adjudication or refusal to adjudicate disputes; the widespread application of the principle of buyer's conceit in the courts, which makes it difficult for investors to win the case and obtain relief; and the failure of the court to recognize the hypocrisy of consent between the parties, The recognition of the investor's intention is contrary to substantive fairness.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】