本文選題：實(shí)際施工人　切入點(diǎn)：發(fā)包人　出處：《中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：在我國(guó)建設(shè)工程施工領(lǐng)域內(nèi),轉(zhuǎn)包、違法分包、掛靠(借用資質(zhì))等違法行為長(zhǎng)期存在,屢禁不止。實(shí)際施工人作為無(wú)效施工合同的當(dāng)事人,承擔(dān)工程的實(shí)際施工任務(wù)。為了保護(hù)實(shí)際施工人特別是農(nóng)民工弱勢(shì)群體的權(quán)益,最高人民法院司法解釋規(guī)定,實(shí)際施工人可以向發(fā)包人主張權(quán)利�？墒�,司法解釋未對(duì)實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)的法律基礎(chǔ)做出明確規(guī)定,區(qū)區(qū)一條規(guī)定且過(guò)于原則,引發(fā)諸多爭(zhēng)議,司法實(shí)踐出現(xiàn)了大量問(wèn)題。本文側(cè)重實(shí)務(wù)角度,對(duì)實(shí)際施工人對(duì)發(fā)包人訴權(quán)的相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析研究,提出完善實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)制度的立法建議。全文由序論、正文、結(jié)語(yǔ)三個(gè)部分構(gòu)成。正文共分為五章。第一章從我國(guó)合同法分則“施工人”概念入手,對(duì)比分析實(shí)際施工人的內(nèi)涵,認(rèn)為實(shí)際施工人屬于無(wú)效施工合同的承包人,是工程施工任務(wù)的實(shí)際承擔(dān)者。論述實(shí)際施工人在實(shí)踐中的表現(xiàn)形式,著重分析包工頭與農(nóng)民工兩類群體。第二章概述實(shí)際施工人對(duì)發(fā)包人的訴權(quán)內(nèi)容。認(rèn)為發(fā)包人的概念是相對(duì)的,并非單指業(yè)主,可以是勞務(wù)分包、轉(zhuǎn)包或違法分包等合同的發(fā)包人。實(shí)際施工人對(duì)發(fā)包人行使訴權(quán)要受到嚴(yán)格的條件限制。探討發(fā)包人對(duì)實(shí)際施工人承擔(dān)責(zé)任的性質(zhì)與責(zé)任范圍。在實(shí)際施工人訴訟過(guò)程中,區(qū)分不同情形下參與訴訟各方的訴訟地位。第三章探討實(shí)際施工人對(duì)發(fā)包人訴權(quán)的法理基礎(chǔ)。先介紹司法解釋第26條制定過(guò)程和立法背景,再具體分析事實(shí)合同關(guān)系說(shuō)、突破合同相對(duì)性說(shuō)、代位權(quán)說(shuō)、不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�說(shuō)四種學(xué)說(shuō),最后認(rèn)為實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)是最高人民法院為了保護(hù)農(nóng)民工利益、突破合同相對(duì)性原則而做出的特別規(guī)定。第四章對(duì)實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)適用的司法現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析。認(rèn)為實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)制度對(duì)于保護(hù)實(shí)際施工人利益起到了重要作用,同時(shí),司法實(shí)踐中存在實(shí)際施工人濫用訴權(quán)惡意訴訟、法院立案隨意、發(fā)包人責(zé)任加重、保護(hù)農(nóng)民工利益預(yù)期落空等問(wèn)題。第五章提出完善實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)制度的立法建議。參考域外國(guó)家民法代位權(quán)制度,并從解釋論角度,建議明確實(shí)際施工人向發(fā)包人主張權(quán)利為債權(quán)人之代位權(quán)。建議完善立法,嚴(yán)格實(shí)際施工人對(duì)發(fā)包人訴權(quán)的適用條件,區(qū)分實(shí)際施工人與農(nóng)民工兩類主體權(quán)益保護(hù)的救濟(jì)措施,實(shí)現(xiàn)實(shí)際施工人訴權(quán)保護(hù)與限制達(dá)到平衡。
[Abstract]:In the field of construction of construction projects in China, illegal subcontracting, illegal subcontracting and related (borrowing qualifications) and other illegal acts exist for a long time, repeated prohibition.The actual constructor, as a party to the invalid construction contract, undertakes the actual construction task of the project.In order to protect the rights and interests of the actual constructors, especially the vulnerable groups of migrant workers, the judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court stipulates that the actual constructors can claim the rights of the contractors.However, the judicial interpretation has not clearly stipulated the legal basis of the actual constructor's right of action, only one provision is too principled, which has caused many disputes, and a large number of problems have appeared in judicial practice.This paper focuses on the practical point of view, analyzes and studies the relevant legal issues of the actual constructor's right of action against the contractor, and puts forward some legislative suggestions to perfect the system of the actual constructor's right of action.The full text consists of three parts: preface, text and conclusion.The text is divided into five chapters.The first chapter starts with the concept of "constructor" in the special rule of contract law of our country, compares and analyzes the connotation of actual constructor, and thinks that the actual constructor belongs to the contractor of invalid construction contract and is the actual bearer of project construction task.This paper discusses the manifestation of practical constructors in practice, and analyzes two groups of contractors and migrant workers.The second chapter summarizes the content of the actual constructor's right of action against the contractor.The author thinks that the concept of the contractor is relative, not only the owner, but also the contractor of the contract such as labor subcontract, subcontract or illegal subcontract.The actual construction of the contract to exercise the right of action to be subject to strict conditions.Discuss the nature and scope of the contractor's responsibility to the actual constructor.In the actual constructor litigation process, the litigation status of the parties involved in the litigation under different circumstances is distinguished.The third chapter discusses the legal basis of the actual constructor's right of action against the contractor.This paper first introduces the process and legislative background of Article 26 of judicial interpretation, then concretely analyzes the theory of factual contractual relationship, breaks through the theory of relativity of contract, the theory of right of subrogation, the theory of improper enrichment, and the theory of return of improper enrichment.Finally, the author thinks that the actual constructor's right of action is a special regulation made by the Supreme people's Court in order to protect the interests of migrant workers and break through the principle of relativity of contract.The fourth chapter analyzes the judicial status quo of the application of the actual constructor's right of action.The author thinks that the system of the actual constructor's right of action plays an important role in protecting the interests of the actual constructor. At the same time, in judicial practice, there are malevolent litigation of the actual constructor's abuse of the right of action, the court files the case at will, and the responsibility of the contractor is aggravated.Protection of the interests of migrant workers expected to fall short of such issues.The fifth chapter puts forward the legislative suggestions to perfect the system of actual constructor's right of action.Referring to the system of subrogation in civil law of foreign countries and from the angle of explanation, it is suggested that the actual constructor should claim the right to the contractor as the subrogation of the creditor.It is suggested to perfect the legislation, strictly enforce the applicable conditions of the actual constructor's right of action to the contractor, distinguish the relief measures for the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructor and the peasant worker, and realize the balance between the protection and limitation of the actual constructor's right of action.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 汪云;;論實(shí)際施工人的法律困境——以實(shí)際施工人訴發(fā)包人為視角[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年09期

2 熊煒;趙慶華;;實(shí)際施工人的法律責(zé)任和權(quán)利[J];泰州職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

3 王桐;;接天蓮葉無(wú)窮碧 映日荷花別樣紅——全國(guó)律協(xié)建房委“建設(shè)工程施工合同適用法律研討會(huì)”綜述[J];中國(guó)律師;2013年07期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 武漢大學(xué)法學(xué)院博士研究生 張大為;[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 高曉;實(shí)際施工人向發(fā)包人主張權(quán)利法律問(wèn)題研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1725490