【摘要】：不可抗辯規(guī)則是對(duì)保險(xiǎn)人合同解除權(quán)的限制，其有效的遏制了保險(xiǎn)人權(quán)利的濫用，保護(hù)了被保險(xiǎn)人的利益。雖然我國(guó)在2009年新修訂的保險(xiǎn)法中引入了不可抗辯規(guī)則，，但是條文的規(guī)定較為簡(jiǎn)單，不能應(yīng)對(duì)復(fù)雜的社會(huì)實(shí)踐。因此，本文即試圖運(yùn)用比較分析法、歷史分析法和價(jià)值分析法，通過考察不可抗辯規(guī)則的起源與發(fā)展，研究不可抗辯規(guī)則存在的法理依據(jù)，以論述其存在的合理與合法性。同時(shí)，通過對(duì)不可抗辯規(guī)則在適用中的爭(zhēng)議問題進(jìn)行探討，從而為完善我國(guó)不可抗辯規(guī)則的規(guī)定提供建議。本文除引言和結(jié)語外，包含四個(gè)部分，其主要內(nèi)容如下： 第一部分介紹了不可抗辯規(guī)則的含義，并對(duì)不可抗辯規(guī)則的起源與發(fā)展進(jìn)行了論述。不可抗辯規(guī)則與棄權(quán)、禁止抗辯制度一樣，都是限制保險(xiǎn)人行使合同解除權(quán)的一項(xiàng)制度，但是三者之間存在一定差異。不可抗辯起源于英美，其性質(zhì)已從任意約定的條款發(fā)展為具有普遍性和法律強(qiáng)制效力的不可抗辯規(guī)則。 第二部分介紹了不可抗辯規(guī)則的法理依據(jù)。不可抗辯規(guī)則是對(duì)“欺詐使合同得撤銷或無效”這一合同法基本規(guī)則的突破，但是不可抗辯規(guī)則一方面與誠實(shí)信用原則的限制和平衡功能相適應(yīng)；另一方面又與公共政策所追求的效益、利益與發(fā)展這三個(gè)基本價(jià)值相符。因此，不可抗辯規(guī)則的存在具有相當(dāng)?shù)暮侠砼c合法性。 第三部分探討了不可抗辯規(guī)則在適用中的一些爭(zhēng)議問題。不可抗辯規(guī)則不應(yīng)適用于嚴(yán)重性欺詐；當(dāng)告知義務(wù)的違反導(dǎo)致合同無效時(shí)，不可抗辯規(guī)則不應(yīng)適用；保險(xiǎn)合同復(fù)效時(shí)，投保人應(yīng)當(dāng)再次履行如實(shí)告知義務(wù)，此時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)分別計(jì)算兩次可抗辯期間；不可抗辯規(guī)則的適用應(yīng)限于可抗辯期間內(nèi)未發(fā)生保險(xiǎn)事故；保險(xiǎn)法上的解除權(quán)應(yīng)排除合同法上的撤銷權(quán)而適用。 第四部分對(duì)我國(guó)有關(guān)不可抗辯規(guī)則的規(guī)定進(jìn)行了解讀并提出了完善建議。我國(guó)的不可抗辯規(guī)則既適用于人身保險(xiǎn)合同，也適用于財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)合同；可抗辯期間自合同成立時(shí)起算。我國(guó)立法應(yīng)當(dāng)明確，保險(xiǎn)利益欠缺時(shí)以及構(gòu)成嚴(yán)重欺詐時(shí)不應(yīng)適用不可抗辯規(guī)則；合同復(fù)效時(shí)應(yīng)分別計(jì)算兩次可抗辯期間；不可抗辯規(guī)則的適用應(yīng)限于可抗辯期間內(nèi)未發(fā)生保險(xiǎn)事故；保險(xiǎn)法上的解除權(quán)應(yīng)排除合同法上的撤銷權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The non-defensible rule is the restriction of the insurer's right to rescind the contract, which effectively restrains the abuse of the insurer's rights and protects the interests of the insured. Although our country introduced the non-defense rule in the new insurance law of 2009, but the provisions of the provisions are relatively simple, can not cope with the complex social practice. Therefore, this paper attempts to use comparative analysis, historical analysis and value analysis, by investigating the origin and development of the non-defensible rule, to study the legal basis for the existence of the non-defensible rule, and to discuss the rationality and legitimacy of its existence. At the same time, through the discussion of the dispute in the application of the indefensible rule, suggestions are provided for the perfection of the indefensible rule in our country. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper contains four parts, the main contents are as follows: the first part introduces the meaning of the non-defensible rule, and discusses the origin and development of the non-defensible rule. The non-defensible rule, like waiver and prohibition, is a system that restricts the insurer from exercising the right to rescind the contract, but there are some differences among them. The nature of non-defense originated in Britain and America, and its nature has developed from the clause of arbitrary agreement to the rule of non-pleading with universal and compulsory force of law. The second part introduces the legal basis of the indefensible rule. The non-defensible rule is a breakthrough to the basic rule of contract law of "fraud makes the contract annulment or invalidation", but on the one hand, the non-defensible rule adapts to the restriction and balance function of the principle of good faith. On the other hand, it is consistent with the three basic values of public policy: efficiency, benefit and development. Therefore, the existence of the non-defensible rule is quite reasonable and legitimate. The third part discusses some controversial issues in the application of the non-defensible rule. The non-defensible rule should not be applied to serious fraud; when the breach of the obligation of notification results in the invalidation of the contract, the non-defensible rule should not be applied. When the insurance contract is effective again, the applicant shall perform the obligation of informing truthfully again, and at this time shall calculate two defensible periods separately; the application of the non-defensible rule shall be limited to the absence of an insurance accident within the defensible period; The right of rescission in insurance law should be excluded from the application of the right of rescission in contract law. The fourth part interprets the rules of non-defense and puts forward some suggestions. The non-defensible rule of our country is applicable to both personal insurance contract and property insurance contract. The legislation of our country should make it clear that the non-defensible rule should not be applied when the insurance interest is lacking and constitutes serious fraud, and the period of rebuttal should be calculated respectively when the contract is effective again. The application of the non-defensible rule should be limited to the absence of an insurance accident within the defensible period, and the right of rescission in the insurance law should be excluded from the contract law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 郭建標(biāo);;《保險(xiǎn)法》中不可抗辯條款若干法律問題之探討[J];法律適用;2012年01期

2 樊啟榮;;人壽保險(xiǎn)契約之不可抗辯條款研究[J];商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)與管理;2008年03期

本文編號(hào)：2389981