本文選題：民間借貸合同　切入點(diǎn)：主體　出處：《遼寧大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文詳細(xì)論述了民間借貸合同的特點(diǎn)、作用和我國(guó)當(dāng)前立法模式。在民間借貸合同特點(diǎn)方面，考慮到民間借貸合同這一稱(chēng)呼主要是對(duì)比銀行借款合同來(lái)說(shuō)，故采取了兩者對(duì)比論述的方法。在民間借款合同作用方面，本文全面論述了其積極作用和消極作用，認(rèn)為總體而言利大于弊。同時(shí)，本文認(rèn)為當(dāng)前我國(guó)對(duì)于民間借貸合同規(guī)定的法律模式，可以稱(chēng)之為錐形、二元化、管制型立法模式。這主要考慮到按法理學(xué)位階理論分析，法律文件效力分布呈錐形狀�，F(xiàn)行對(duì)于民間借貸合同效力的直接性細(xì)則規(guī)定，采取了有效無(wú)效截然性劃分的二元化立法模式。在內(nèi)容上，法律強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定細(xì)化到許多本應(yīng)由民間借貸合同當(dāng)事人自主決定的部分。 在影響到民間借貸合同效力問(wèn)題的主體資格問(wèn)題上，本文認(rèn)為我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定并不完善�，F(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)對(duì)于企業(yè)與企業(yè)之間的借款合同效力持否定態(tài)度，這既不符合法理也不符合現(xiàn)實(shí)需要。本文認(rèn)為認(rèn)可企業(yè)與企業(yè)之間的借款合同效力完全具有可行性。無(wú)論是地方內(nèi)部性規(guī)定，還是一些現(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)，對(duì)于企業(yè)與企業(yè)之間的借款合同效力都有著默許的態(tài)度，況且這更多屬于私法自治的范疇。對(duì)于自然人與企業(yè)之間的借款合同效力，目前有部分有效觀點(diǎn)、完全有效觀點(diǎn)和介于前兩者之間的觀點(diǎn)。本文認(rèn)為當(dāng)前對(duì)于此類(lèi)合同分為合同有效和非法集資行為則有著現(xiàn)實(shí)的意義。另外，盡管對(duì)于村委會(huì)與村民之間借貸合同效力沒(méi)有法律明文規(guī)定，理論上也存在爭(zhēng)議，但是本文認(rèn)為這兩者之間進(jìn)行借貸有著法律與財(cái)務(wù)上的可行性。 在影響合同效力的利息問(wèn)題上，理論上有著放開(kāi)說(shuō)、管制說(shuō)和折中說(shuō)三種觀點(diǎn)。放開(kāi)說(shuō)主張將利息問(wèn)題作為市場(chǎng)問(wèn)題看，同時(shí)列舉國(guó)外法律的放開(kāi)性規(guī)定。管制說(shuō)更多考慮到金融風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的存在。折中說(shuō)的態(tài)度則介于兩者之間。事實(shí)上對(duì)于這一問(wèn)題，立法者也很為難。這表現(xiàn)在關(guān)于單復(fù)利問(wèn)題的司法解釋之間和法條之間的前后矛盾，，也表現(xiàn)在最高院與人民銀行對(duì)于高利貸的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同。本文認(rèn)為利息管制不能簡(jiǎn)單的“一刀切”解決，而應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)不同的情況區(qū)別性規(guī)定利率高低。首先，充分發(fā)揮地方立法權(quán)的作用，不同經(jīng)濟(jì)條件的地區(qū)可以規(guī)定不同利率標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。其次，根據(jù)借貸用途不同，區(qū)分性規(guī)定生產(chǎn)性借貸、消費(fèi)借貸和公益性借貸的利率標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。再次，區(qū)別規(guī)定收益性利息與處罰性利息。 在合同目的問(wèn)題方面，本文從民間借貸實(shí)踐出發(fā)，結(jié)合合同法理論問(wèn)題，作了詳細(xì)論述。本文反對(duì)現(xiàn)行關(guān)于民間借貸合同的二元化立法模式，對(duì)于民間借貸合同目的虛假的情況，本文不主張采取一刀切式的無(wú)效觀點(diǎn)，而將其依情況不同，分為自始無(wú)效、效力待定和部分無(wú)效的情況。對(duì)于合同資金實(shí)際用途與合同約定不符問(wèn)題也應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)實(shí)際情況區(qū)分合同有效或無(wú)效。
[Abstract]:This paper discusses in detail the characteristics, functions and current legislative model of the private loan contract. In terms of the characteristics of the private loan contract, considering that the term "folk loan contract" is mainly compared with the bank loan contract, Therefore, the author adopts the method of comparing the two methods. In the aspect of the function of folk loan contract, this paper comprehensively discusses its positive and negative effects, and thinks that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in general. At the same time, This article thinks that the current legal model of the folk loan contract in our country can be called conical, dualistic and regulatory legislative model. The distribution of the validity of legal documents is cone-shaped. The current direct rules for the validity of private lending contracts have adopted a dualistic legislative model of dividing the validity and invalidity of diametrically. The mandatory provisions of the law are detailed to many parts that should be independently determined by the parties to private loan contracts. On the question of the subject qualification which affects the validity of the folk loan contract, this paper holds that the current laws and regulations of our country are not perfect, and the existing laws and regulations negate the validity of the loan contract between the enterprise and the enterprise. This is neither in line with legal theory nor with practical needs. This paper holds that the validity of loan contracts between enterprises is completely feasible. Whether it is local internal regulations or some existing laws and regulations, There is a tacit attitude towards the validity of loan contracts between enterprises, and this is more within the scope of private law autonomy. There are currently some valid views on the validity of loan contracts between natural persons and enterprises. This paper holds that there is realistic significance for such contracts to be divided into valid contracts and illegal fund-raising. Although there are no legal provisions on the validity of the loan contract between the village committee and the villagers, there are disputes in theory, but this paper believes that the loan between the two has legal and financial feasibility. On the issue of interest which affects the validity of the contract, there are three viewpoints in theory: liberalism, regulation and compromise. At the same time, it enumerates the liberalizing provisions of foreign laws. The regulation theory takes into account the existence of financial risks more. The compromise attitude is somewhere between the two. In fact, for this issue, Lawmakers are also in a difficult position. This is manifested in inconsistencies between the judicial interpretation of the issue of single compound interest and the provisions of the law. This article holds that interest control can not be simply "one-size-fits-all" solution, but should be based on different circumstances to specify the level of interest rate. First of all, To give full play to the role of local legislative power, different regions with different economic conditions can set different interest rate standards. Secondly, according to the different purposes of borrowing, differentiated rates of interest rates for productive lending, consumer borrowing and public welfare borrowing can be stipulated. Again, Distinguish between regulated interest on earnings and interest on penalties. In terms of the purpose of the contract, this paper discusses in detail from the practice of folk borrowing and combining with the theory of contract law. For the situation that the purpose of the folk loan contract is false, this article does not advocate adopting a one-size-fits-all view of invalidity, but divides it into original invalidity according to the situation. As to the actual use of the contract funds and the non-conformity with the contract agreement, the validity or invalidity of the contract shall be distinguished according to the actual circumstances.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 宋魚(yú)水;無(wú)效合同的認(rèn)定和處理[J];人民司法;1999年02期

2 張立先;;我國(guó)民間借貸法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及防范路徑研究[J];金融發(fā)展研究;2009年01期

3 周素彥;民間借貸:理論、現(xiàn)實(shí)與制度重構(gòu)[J];山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2005年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 曾紀(jì)勝;論我國(guó)民間借貸監(jiān)管制度的完善[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

2 房蕾;論企業(yè)間借貸合同的效力及其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防范[D];上海交通大學(xué);2011年

3 田瑞云;我國(guó)民間借貸監(jiān)管及立法完善研究[D];蘭州商學(xué)院;2011年

4 宋洋;中國(guó)民間借貸利率管制法律路徑的檢討與重構(gòu)[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2011年

5 劉曉婭;淺析民間借貸的若干法律問(wèn)題[D];西南政法大學(xué);2011年

6 陳鍵;民間借貸管制制度的反思與重構(gòu)[D];華東理工大學(xué);2012年

7 崔昊;論民間借貸的法律規(guī)制[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

8 莊文敏;我國(guó)民間借貸的監(jiān)管制度建構(gòu)[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2006年

9 聞?dòng)绖?民間借款合同的法律調(diào)整[D];延邊大學(xué);2007年

10 李想;論民間借貸的法律監(jiān)管[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1690832