【摘要】：從法律關(guān)系分類上看，民間借貸屬于借貸合同關(guān)系。合同效力是合同關(guān)系的核心，所以民間借貸合同效力是審查民間借貸的首要問題。我國(guó)對(duì)民間借貸采取嚴(yán)格限制的態(tài)度，在法律上表現(xiàn)為對(duì)借貸主體資格的過度限制和借貸利息的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定，甚至對(duì)民間借貸當(dāng)事人追究刑事責(zé)任。在此基礎(chǔ)上，司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)民間借貸效力的認(rèn)定傾向保守，導(dǎo)致大量本應(yīng)有效的民間借貸合同被認(rèn)定無效。實(shí)踐證明，民間借貸合同過多的被認(rèn)定為無效，使得社會(huì)融資成本增加，社會(huì)財(cái)富浪費(fèi)。這明顯不符合合同效力應(yīng)當(dāng)尊重當(dāng)事人意思表示，違背現(xiàn)代合同法鼓勵(lì)交易、減少無效合同的基本價(jià)值取向。有鑒于此，如何立足于民間借貸合同效力判斷中的國(guó)家干預(yù)與當(dāng)事人意思自由的有機(jī)統(tǒng)一，維持金融秩序安全、穩(wěn)定，保護(hù)借貸當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益，理應(yīng)引起民法學(xué)界的高度關(guān)注。 本文主要分為六個(gè)部分，各部分的主要內(nèi)容分別如下： 第一部分：民間借貸及民間借貸合同效力概述。 第二部分：民間借貸合同效力的現(xiàn)行規(guī)定及評(píng)析 第三部分：分析企業(yè)間借貸的效力。首先，由于銀行等正規(guī)金融機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)廣大中小民營(yíng)企業(yè)的信貸“歧視，”企業(yè)為了緩解資金緊張，轉(zhuǎn)而求助于民間借貸。尊重企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)自主權(quán)，保障企業(yè)合法權(quán)益，促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)的繁榮發(fā)展，應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)企業(yè)間借貸并賦予其法律效力。其次，國(guó)家對(duì)企業(yè)間借貸的監(jiān)督與管理應(yīng)當(dāng)謹(jǐn)慎，不能借助維護(hù)金融秩序穩(wěn)定的需要隨意介入企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)，干預(yù)企業(yè)的財(cái)產(chǎn)自由權(quán)。 第四部分：分析民間借貸中高利貸的效力。根據(jù)私法自治，綜合考慮各種風(fēng)險(xiǎn)確定的利率條款，即使高于銀行同期同類貸款利率的合同應(yīng)當(dāng)有效；然而，主觀上為了牟取暴利獲取比市場(chǎng)價(jià)格高額的利息，損害受貸人的合法財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利，危害社會(huì)穩(wěn)定的合同應(yīng)當(dāng)無效。 第五部分：分析非法集資民間借貸合同效力。民間借貸合同中涉及非法集資等刑事違法行為的，應(yīng)當(dāng)嚴(yán)格依照刑法的規(guī)定追究行為人的刑事責(zé)任；合同的效力應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)民法以及合同法的規(guī)定，，綜合強(qiáng)制性法律規(guī)定的目的，正確衡量法律沖突背后的利益來判斷合同的效力。第六部分：對(duì)全文進(jìn)行總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:From the legal relation classification, the folk loan belongs to the loan contract relation. The effectiveness of the contract is the core of the contractual relationship, so the effectiveness of the folk loan contract is the primary issue in the examination of the private loan. Our country takes the strict restriction attitude to the folk loan, displays in the law the excessive restriction to the loan main body qualification and the loan interest compulsory stipulation, even investigates the criminal responsibility to the folk loan party. On this basis, in judicial practice, the recognition of the effectiveness of private lending tend to be conservative, resulting in a large number of should be effective folk loan contracts were found invalid. Practice has proved that too many private loan contracts are considered invalid, which makes social financing cost increase and social wealth wasted. This obviously does not accord with the contract effect should respect the party intention expression, violates the modern contract law to encourage the transaction, reduces the invalid contract basic value orientation. In view of this, how to maintain the security and stability of the financial order and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the borrowing parties, based on the organic unification of the state intervention in the judgment of the effectiveness of the private lending contracts and the freedom of the parties' meaning, It should arouse the high attention of the civil law circles. This paper is divided into six parts, the main contents of each part are as follows: the first part: private lending and private lending contract effectiveness overview. The second part: the current provisions and evaluation of the validity of private lending contracts. The third part: analysis of the effectiveness of inter-firm lending. First of all, due to the bank and other formal financial institutions to the vast number of small and medium-sized private enterprises credit "discrimination," enterprises in order to ease the shortage of funds, turning to private lending. It is necessary to recognize inter-firm lending and endow it with legal effect by respecting enterprises' autonomy in operation, safeguarding their legitimate rights and interests, and promoting the prosperity and development of the economy. Secondly, the state should be cautious in its supervision and management of inter-firm lending, and should not intervene freely in the production and operation activities of enterprises and interfere with the right to property freedom by means of the need to maintain the stability of financial order. Part IV: analysis of the effectiveness of usury in private lending. Under private law autonomy, a combination of interest rate clauses determined by various risks should be considered, even if contracts that are higher than similar bank lending rates for the same period should be valid; however, subjectively, for profiteering, the interest is higher than the market price, Contracts that impair the legitimate property rights of the lender and endanger social stability shall be null and void. The fifth part: analyze the validity of private loan contract. Where a folk loan contract involves criminal offences such as illegal fund-raising, the criminal liability of the perpetrator shall be investigated strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law; the validity of the contract shall be based on the provisions of the civil law and the contract law, and shall be comprehensive with the purposes stipulated in the compulsory law, Judge the effectiveness of the contract by correctly measuring the interests behind the conflict of laws. The sixth part: summarize the full text.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姚新華;契約自由論[J];比較法研究;1997年01期

2 劉健;李辰辰;;非法吸收公眾存款罪之辨析——兼評(píng)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理非法集資刑事案件具體應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》[J];法治研究;2012年03期

3 王建文;黃震;;論中國(guó)民間借貸存在的依據(jù)、問題及規(guī)制路徑[J];重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年01期

4 楊梅蘭;周岑茗;張景怡;;民間借貸與非法集資的規(guī)制難點(diǎn)與法律對(duì)策研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2013年06期

5 付莉;;民間借貸的法律規(guī)制[J];河北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期

6 張書清;;民間借貸法律價(jià)值體系的重構(gòu)[J];上海金融;2009年02期

7 趙峰;;企業(yè)間借貸合同的效力問題探討[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)家;2012年05期

8 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

9 姚大志;論程序正義[J];天津社會(huì)科學(xué);2000年04期

10 黃忠;;企業(yè)間借貸合同無效論之檢討[J];清華法學(xué);2013年04期

本文編號(hào)：2183416