附隨義務(wù)與合同解除
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-12 17:31
【摘要】：義務(wù)群是債法的核心問題�，F(xiàn)代債法的發(fā)展，在一定意義上可以說是債之關(guān)系上義務(wù)群的發(fā)展。1999年《中華人民共和國合同法》首次規(guī)定附隨義務(wù)，但是不論在理論界還是實務(wù)界對附隨義務(wù)的認識和研究都尚未成熟。不但附隨義務(wù)的類型有待商榷，而且關(guān)于債務(wù)人違反附隨義務(wù)是否導(dǎo)致合同解除權(quán)的發(fā)生這一問題尚無定論。本文旨在討論債務(wù)人違反附隨義務(wù)的情況下可否導(dǎo)致債權(quán)人的法定解除權(quán)的發(fā)生，具體分五個部分展開論述。 第一部分概述了我國關(guān)于附隨義務(wù)的立法現(xiàn)狀和關(guān)于是否發(fā)生解除權(quán)的典型判例，并指出違反附隨義務(wù)在法律后果上的爭議焦點：合同履行過程中，，一方當事人違反附隨義務(wù)，另一方當事人可否行使解除權(quán)以解除合同。如果債權(quán)人得以行使解除權(quán)，那么此種解除權(quán)需要何種行使要件。 第二部分具體闡述了附隨義務(wù)的基本理論作為后文開展論述的鋪墊。重點分析了附隨義務(wù)得以構(gòu)建的理論基礎(chǔ)、判例基礎(chǔ)和立法基礎(chǔ)。在此基礎(chǔ)上理清與附隨義務(wù)相關(guān)的其他概念，如從給付義務(wù)和不真正義務(wù)。從而通過比較將附隨義務(wù)與其他易混淆的概念區(qū)分開來，在概念上劃清了對附隨義務(wù)界定。 第三部分緊接著前一部分的論述，提出附隨義務(wù)的概念、表征和類型。由于附隨義務(wù)的內(nèi)容和范圍具有開放性和不確定性，各國學(xué)者對此的看法并不統(tǒng)一。筆者有必要先界定本文所論述的附隨義務(wù)的概念和類型，以方便下文討論的展開。具體而言，通過對德國、日本、我國臺灣地區(qū)和國內(nèi)學(xué)者觀點的梳理和分析，界定本文中所討論的附隨義務(wù)的內(nèi)涵和外延。 第四部分探討了債務(wù)人違反附隨義務(wù)能否導(dǎo)致債權(quán)人的法定解除權(quán)的發(fā)生。德國的立法上，德國債法修訂后，于第324條中明確規(guī)定在雙務(wù)合同中，若債務(wù)人違反第241條第2款規(guī)定之義務(wù)（即附隨義務(wù)），且對債權(quán)人而言維持合同將不再能夠期待，則債權(quán)人得解除合同。日本學(xué)術(shù)界對該問題多持否定態(tài)度，認為一旦違反附隨義務(wù)構(gòu)成法定解除權(quán)發(fā)生之原因，那么該附隨義務(wù)即為要素債務(wù)。但也有少數(shù)學(xué)者持肯定態(tài)度。我國臺灣地區(qū)的學(xué)者對此有三種態(tài)度，即肯定說、否定說和折中說。我國國內(nèi)學(xué)者對此問題討論諸多，多持肯定說。筆者在綜合分析上述比較法上的觀點后提出自己的見解，贊成折中說，并分析此種解除權(quán)的發(fā)生要件。 第五部分進行生效判例的解讀和研究，并在此判例的基礎(chǔ)上改編出兩例新案情以支持本文論點：即只有當因可歸責于債務(wù)人之原因，違反附隨義務(wù)的行為足以導(dǎo)致合同目的之落空或作為合同基礎(chǔ)的信賴關(guān)系之喪失時，債權(quán)人得以合同法第94條第4款行使法定解除權(quán)。
[Abstract]:Obligation group is the core problem of debt law. In a certain sense, the development of modern debt law can be said to be the development of obligation groups in the relationship of debt. In 1999, the contract Law of the people's Republic of China first stipulated collateral obligations. However, the understanding and research of collateral obligation is not mature either in theory or in practice. Not only is the type of collateral obligation open to question, but there is no final conclusion as to whether the debtor's breach of collateral obligation leads to the occurrence of the right to rescind the contract. The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the debtor can lead to the occurrence of the creditor's right of legal discharge under the circumstance of breach of collateral obligation, which is divided into five parts. The first part summarizes the legislative status of collateral obligations in China and the typical cases on whether the right of rescission occurs, and points out the dispute focus on the legal consequences of breach of collateral obligations: in the process of contract performance, one party violates the collateral obligation. Can the other party exercise the right to rescind the contract. If the creditor is able to exercise the right of discharge, then what is the requirement for such discharge. The second part elaborates the basic theory of collateral obligation as the paver of the following discussion. The theoretical basis, the case basis and the legislative basis for the construction of collateral obligation are emphatically analyzed. On this basis, we clarify other concepts related to collateral obligations, such as payment obligations and unreal obligations. By comparing the collateral obligation and other confusing concepts, the concept of collateral obligation is clearly defined. The third part puts forward the concept, representation and type of collateral obligation. Due to the openness and uncertainty of the content and scope of collateral obligation, scholars in various countries have different views on it. It is necessary for the author to define the concept and types of collateral obligation discussed in this paper, so as to facilitate the following discussion. Specifically, by combing and analyzing the viewpoints of German, Japanese, Taiwan and domestic scholars, the connotation and extension of collateral obligation discussed in this paper are defined. The fourth part discusses whether the debtor's breach of collateral obligation can lead to the occurrence of the creditor's legal discharge right. In German legislation, the amendment of German debt law makes it clear in article 324 that in a double service contract, if the debtor violates the obligations under article 241, paragraph 2 (that is, the accompanying obligation) and the maintenance of the contract will no longer be expected of the creditor, The creditor may terminate the contract. Japanese academic circles tend to take a negative attitude towards this issue, and hold that once the breach of collateral obligation constitutes the cause of the legal right of discharge, then the collateral obligation is factor debt. But there are also a few scholars positive attitude. Scholars in Taiwan have three attitudes to this: affirmative, negative and eclectic. Our country domestic scholar to this question discussion many, holds the affirmation to say more. After synthetically analyzing the viewpoint of the above mentioned comparative law, the author puts forward his own opinion, agrees with the compromise theory, and analyzes the conditions of occurrence of such right of rescission. The fifth part interprets and studies the effective case, and adapts two new cases on the basis of this case to support the argument of this paper: that is, only for the reason that the debtor can be held responsible. If the breach of collateral obligation is sufficient to cause the purpose of the contract to fail or the trust relationship on which the contract is based to be lost, the creditor may exercise the statutory right of rescission in Article 94, paragraph 4, of the contract Law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.6
本文編號：2239742
[Abstract]:Obligation group is the core problem of debt law. In a certain sense, the development of modern debt law can be said to be the development of obligation groups in the relationship of debt. In 1999, the contract Law of the people's Republic of China first stipulated collateral obligations. However, the understanding and research of collateral obligation is not mature either in theory or in practice. Not only is the type of collateral obligation open to question, but there is no final conclusion as to whether the debtor's breach of collateral obligation leads to the occurrence of the right to rescind the contract. The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether the debtor can lead to the occurrence of the creditor's right of legal discharge under the circumstance of breach of collateral obligation, which is divided into five parts. The first part summarizes the legislative status of collateral obligations in China and the typical cases on whether the right of rescission occurs, and points out the dispute focus on the legal consequences of breach of collateral obligations: in the process of contract performance, one party violates the collateral obligation. Can the other party exercise the right to rescind the contract. If the creditor is able to exercise the right of discharge, then what is the requirement for such discharge. The second part elaborates the basic theory of collateral obligation as the paver of the following discussion. The theoretical basis, the case basis and the legislative basis for the construction of collateral obligation are emphatically analyzed. On this basis, we clarify other concepts related to collateral obligations, such as payment obligations and unreal obligations. By comparing the collateral obligation and other confusing concepts, the concept of collateral obligation is clearly defined. The third part puts forward the concept, representation and type of collateral obligation. Due to the openness and uncertainty of the content and scope of collateral obligation, scholars in various countries have different views on it. It is necessary for the author to define the concept and types of collateral obligation discussed in this paper, so as to facilitate the following discussion. Specifically, by combing and analyzing the viewpoints of German, Japanese, Taiwan and domestic scholars, the connotation and extension of collateral obligation discussed in this paper are defined. The fourth part discusses whether the debtor's breach of collateral obligation can lead to the occurrence of the creditor's legal discharge right. In German legislation, the amendment of German debt law makes it clear in article 324 that in a double service contract, if the debtor violates the obligations under article 241, paragraph 2 (that is, the accompanying obligation) and the maintenance of the contract will no longer be expected of the creditor, The creditor may terminate the contract. Japanese academic circles tend to take a negative attitude towards this issue, and hold that once the breach of collateral obligation constitutes the cause of the legal right of discharge, then the collateral obligation is factor debt. But there are also a few scholars positive attitude. Scholars in Taiwan have three attitudes to this: affirmative, negative and eclectic. Our country domestic scholar to this question discussion many, holds the affirmation to say more. After synthetically analyzing the viewpoint of the above mentioned comparative law, the author puts forward his own opinion, agrees with the compromise theory, and analyzes the conditions of occurrence of such right of rescission. The fifth part interprets and studies the effective case, and adapts two new cases on the basis of this case to support the argument of this paper: that is, only for the reason that the debtor can be held responsible. If the breach of collateral obligation is sufficient to cause the purpose of the contract to fail or the trust relationship on which the contract is based to be lost, the creditor may exercise the statutory right of rescission in Article 94, paragraph 4, of the contract Law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.6
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 李偉;德國新債法中的附隨義務(wù)及民事責任[J];比較法研究;2004年01期
2 李永軍;契約效力的根源及其正當化說明理論[J];比較法研究;1998年03期
3 霍陽,王全興;從民法的附隨義務(wù)到經(jīng)濟法的基本義務(wù)(下)——淺析民法、經(jīng)濟法調(diào)整現(xiàn)代合同關(guān)系的分工與配合[J];北京市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2001年02期
4 費安玲;論合同法中的附隨義務(wù)[J];當代司法;1999年09期
5 李偉;單曉光;;中德附隨義務(wù)的比較思考[J];德國研究;2006年03期
6 錢玉林;締約過失責任與誠信原則的適用[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1999年04期
7 方龍華,吳根發(fā);論合同法上的保密附隨義務(wù)[J];法律適用(國家法官學(xué)院學(xué)報);2001年10期
8 侯國躍;殷昭仙;;德國附隨義務(wù)理論誕生的社會背景[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年11期
9 肖霄;;論我國附隨義務(wù)制度的不足及完善[J];法制與社會;2009年05期
10 方思;;論附隨義務(wù)違反之法律責任及其可訴性[J];法制與社會;2010年33期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條
1 胡濤;合同附隨義務(wù)研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2002年
2 李彥敏;論締約責任[D];鄭州大學(xué);2002年
3 梁三利;合同附隨義務(wù)理論研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2003年
4 李大慶;附隨義務(wù)法律問題研究[D];東北財經(jīng)大學(xué);2003年
5 矯莉峰;契約外義務(wù)法律制度研究[D];東北財經(jīng)大學(xué);2003年
6 李偉;安全保障義務(wù)論[D];華僑大學(xué);2004年
7 熊艷;論合同法上的附隨義務(wù)[D];廣西大學(xué);2004年
8 金安欽;論合同中的附隨義務(wù)[D];鄭州大學(xué);2004年
本文編號：2239742
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/2239742.html
