本文關(guān)鍵詞： 違約金 補(bǔ)償性違約金 懲罰性違約金 違約金調(diào)整機(jī)制　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：違約金制度是合同法中的一項(xiàng)基本制度,是一種重要的違約責(zé)任的承擔(dān)方式,在合同實(shí)務(wù)中應(yīng)用極為廣泛。在當(dāng)下市場(chǎng)交易日益頻繁與復(fù)雜的背景下,違約金作為督促當(dāng)事人履行合同、懲罰違約方并補(bǔ)償守約方的一項(xiàng)重要設(shè)計(jì),為市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展做出了重要的貢獻(xiàn)。但在司法實(shí)務(wù)中,由于合同相對(duì)人地位的優(yōu)劣、審慎程度的不同以及競(jìng)爭(zhēng)導(dǎo)致的冒險(xiǎn)行為,導(dǎo)致在實(shí)務(wù)中,合同違約金條款千差萬別。鑒于此,合同法設(shè)置了違約金調(diào)整制度以實(shí)現(xiàn)合同當(dāng)事人之間的相對(duì)公平,允許當(dāng)事人事后請(qǐng)求法院或者仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)過分不合理的違約金進(jìn)行調(diào)整。盡管如此,這一制度在實(shí)務(wù)上仍有諸多問題使人困惑,尤其是違約金的性質(zhì)及其具體適用等方面。在實(shí)務(wù)中,有關(guān)違約金制度的現(xiàn)行規(guī)定不利于法官進(jìn)行裁量。關(guān)于違約金調(diào)整制度,有關(guān)舉證責(zé)任的分配以及法官釋明權(quán)行使的條件和范圍,還需要進(jìn)一步明確�；谶`約金制度的上述理論和實(shí)務(wù)方面的問題,筆者在查閱相關(guān)資料的基礎(chǔ)上,從審判實(shí)務(wù)出發(fā),對(duì)違約金制度進(jìn)行分析。本文正文分為四部分。第一部分對(duì)違約金制度進(jìn)行概述,主要分析違約金制度的內(nèi)涵、性質(zhì)以及制度價(jià)值。依據(jù)違約金的性質(zhì),違約金可分為補(bǔ)償性違約金與懲罰性違約金,在區(qū)分違約金性質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)不同性質(zhì)違約金的價(jià)值分別進(jìn)行了闡述。對(duì)違約金制度進(jìn)行域外考察,分析域外違約金制度的立法例,以期為我國(guó)違約金制度的完善尋求啟發(fā)。第二部分?jǐn)⑹鑫覈?guó)違約金制度的現(xiàn)狀,首先,敘述我國(guó)違約金制度的現(xiàn)行法律依據(jù),對(duì)目前與違約金性質(zhì)、調(diào)整制度和違約金適用相關(guān)的法條整合分析。在對(duì)法律依據(jù)綜合研究的基礎(chǔ)上,著重分析我國(guó)違約金制度在審判實(shí)務(wù)中存在的不足。其次,違約金調(diào)整制度不完善,具體包括啟動(dòng)的條件和期限不明確、判斷的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)原則化、法官是否行使釋明權(quán)不明確;另外,懲罰性違約金制度缺失,在實(shí)踐中對(duì)懲罰性違約金并沒有全盤否定,但是,具體到案件審理中法院仍然不會(huì)完全按照當(dāng)事人在合同中的約定來審理認(rèn)定懲罰性違約金。第三部分主要對(duì)我國(guó)違約金制度的完善提出建議。在綜合分析我國(guó)違約金制度現(xiàn)狀的基礎(chǔ)上,首先從違約金調(diào)整制度的啟動(dòng)條件和期限、舉證責(zé)任的分配及法官釋明權(quán)行使的范圍和及條件三個(gè)方面提出完善建議。其次,針對(duì)懲罰性違約金的適用條件及懲罰性違約金與定金的關(guān)系,對(duì)懲罰性違約金的構(gòu)建提出完善建議。第四部分是分析在司法實(shí)踐中如何對(duì)違約金數(shù)額進(jìn)行調(diào)整。違約金數(shù)額的調(diào)整包括調(diào)高和調(diào)低,實(shí)踐中當(dāng)事人要求對(duì)違約金數(shù)額降低的案例更為多見,筆者對(duì)實(shí)踐中經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的、是否可以影響違約金數(shù)額調(diào)整的幾個(gè)因素進(jìn)行整理,并結(jié)合相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行分析,以期對(duì)實(shí)踐有一定的指導(dǎo)價(jià)值。
[Abstract]:The system of liquidated damages is a basic system in contract law and an important way to assume liability for breach of contract, which is widely used in contract practice. As an important design to urge the parties to fulfill the contract, punish the breaching party and compensate the compliance party, the liquidated damages have made an important contribution to the development of the market economy. However, in judicial practice, due to the advantages and disadvantages of the relative status of the contract, Due to the different degree of prudence and the risky behavior caused by competition, there are many different terms in practice. In view of this, the contract law has set up a system to adjust the penalty for breach of contract in order to realize the relative fairness between the parties to the contract. The parties are allowed to ask the court or the arbitration institution to adjust the excessive and unreasonable liquidated damages afterwards. However, there are still many practical problems in the system that make people confused. In particular, the nature of liquidated damages and their specific application. In practice, the current provisions on the system of liquidated damages are not conducive to the discretion of judges. With regard to the distribution of the burden of proof and the conditions and scope of the exercise of the judge's right of interpretation, it needs further clarification. Based on the above theoretical and practical aspects of the system of liquidated damages, the author proceeds from the trial practice on the basis of consulting relevant information. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part summarizes the system of liquidated damages, mainly analyzes the connotation, nature and value of the system. The liquidated damages can be divided into compensatory liquidated damages and punitive liquidated damages. On the basis of distinguishing the nature of the liquidated damages, the value of the liquidated damages of different nature is expounded respectively. This paper analyzes the legislative examples of the system of extra-territorial liquidated damages in order to seek inspiration for the perfection of the system of liquidated damages in China. The second part describes the present situation of the system of liquidated damages in China, first of all, describes the current legal basis of the system of liquidated damages in China. On the basis of the comprehensive study of the legal basis, the author analyzes the deficiency of the system of liquidated damages in the trial practice. The adjustment system of penalty for breach of contract is not perfect, including the condition and time limit of starting is not clear, the criterion of judgment is principle, and whether the judge exercises the right of interpretation is not clear; in addition, the system of punitive penalty for breach of contract is not clear. In practice, the punitive penalty is not completely denied, but, The court will still not judge the punitive liquidated damages in accordance with the agreement of the parties in the contract. The third part mainly puts forward some suggestions for the perfection of the system of liquidated damages in our country. On the basis of the present situation of the Jokin system, First of all, some suggestions are put forward from three aspects: the starting condition and time limit of the adjustment system of liquidated damages, the distribution of the burden of proof and the scope and conditions of the exercise of the judge's right of interpretation. According to the applicable conditions of punitive liquidated damages and the relationship between punitive liquidated damages and deposit, Part 4th is to analyze how to adjust the amount of liquidated damages in judicial practice. In practice, there are more cases where the amount of liquidated damages is reduced. The author collates several factors that can affect the adjustment of the amount of liquidated damages in practice, and analyzes them in combination with relevant cases. With a view to practice has certain guiding value.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 逯詞章;;侵權(quán)法的懲罰性功能探析[J];企業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2012年03期

2 查一路;;懲罰性的亂收費(fèi),借了誰的膽?[J];人民公安;2006年12期

3 曲衛(wèi)國(guó);;村規(guī)民約不得悖法[J];農(nóng)業(yè)知識(shí);1997年11期

4 劉衛(wèi)先;;從生態(tài)損害的特點(diǎn)看我國(guó)生態(tài)損害刑事責(zé)任的設(shè)置[J];環(huán)境保護(hù);2008年06期

5 ;關(guān)于人情,可行性不大[J];政府法制;2011年09期

6 張怡;楊穎;;論稅法的懲罰性規(guī)則[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年01期

7 李劍華 ,沈德理;論債的責(zé)任的懲罰性[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;1987年05期

8 李華偉;論應(yīng)受懲罰性不是犯罪的基本特征[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

9 張喻芳;;伊朗與西方的斗爭(zhēng)[J];社會(huì)觀察;2006年03期

10 姜國(guó)寧;印巴戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng):為何打不了核戰(zhàn)[J];新聞周刊;2002年14期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)評(píng)論員 苗凡卒;交通費(fèi)用調(diào)價(jià)要善用“懲罰性”手段[N];深圳商報(bào);2014年

2 朱茂文;“懲罰性教育”值得商榷[N];中國(guó)婦女報(bào);2004年

3 本報(bào)記者 唐見端;“懲罰性干預(yù)”進(jìn)入倒計(jì)時(shí)？[N];文匯報(bào);2013年

4 記者 張維;千萬元懲罰性索賠未獲法院支持[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

5 本報(bào)記者 吳亞東 本報(bào)通訊員 楊長(zhǎng)平;懲罰性侵兒童男女有別法律遇尷尬[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

6 本報(bào)記者 何鵬;法律專家：用“懲罰性”賠償破除價(jià)格同盟[N];上海證券報(bào);2007年

7 江蘇省如東縣環(huán)保局 楊宗棟;懲罰性關(guān)閉污染企業(yè)的法律思考[N];中國(guó)環(huán)境報(bào);2007年

8 證券時(shí)報(bào)記者 楊磊;3年新發(fā)基金超過600只 僅5只征短期懲罰性贖回費(fèi)[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2013年

9 畢曉哲;如此懲罰“欠薪”還過于單薄[N];人民公安報(bào);2012年

10 劉俊;貴在落實(shí) 難在落實(shí)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 張運(yùn)坤;權(quán)威對(duì)懲罰性傷害判斷的影響[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2015年

2 李春宇;論違約金的調(diào)整[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年

3 王卉;懲罰性違約金制度研究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2016年

4 田園園;論懲罰性違約金[D];上海交通大學(xué);2015年

5 譚玉潔;違約金及其調(diào)整制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2017年

6 陳躍舉;懲罰性違約金適用法律問題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1525342