【摘要】：通謀虛偽表示作為意思表示存在瑕疵的一種情形,這一概念最早由德國民法提出,目前已被瑞士、日本、韓國等許多大陸法系國家和地區(qū)所借鑒,并寫入其民法之中。我國現(xiàn)行民法當(dāng)中沒有對其進(jìn)行規(guī)定,理論界對這一制度的研究也并不充分,其中許多問題仍然存有爭議。在司法實務(wù)中,由通謀虛偽表示所導(dǎo)致的一系列“陰陽合同”、“假按揭”等案例對于法院的審判造成一定難題。本文將對通謀虛偽表示相關(guān)理論進(jìn)行詳細(xì)梳理和介紹,對我國現(xiàn)行民法中的相關(guān)制度及其在司法實踐中的效果進(jìn)行分析檢討,并在此基礎(chǔ)上,對我國民法中通謀虛偽表示制度的建構(gòu)提出建議。本文的正文內(nèi)容共分為四個部分。第一部分,通謀虛偽表示概述。作為意思表示瑕疵中的一種重要情形,通謀虛偽表示的瑕疵在于雙方當(dāng)事人都不希望該意思表示發(fā)生相應(yīng)的法律后果,其構(gòu)成包括有意思表示的存在、表示與真意不符以及表意人與對方通謀三個要素。通謀虛偽表示制度適用于有相對人的單方法律行為,但不應(yīng)適用于經(jīng)合法登記的身份行為。第二部分,通謀虛偽表示的效力。通過對其他國家立法例的分析可見,各國普遍規(guī)定,由于缺乏內(nèi)心的真實意思,通謀虛偽表示在當(dāng)事人之間無效。但是,在對第三人的信賴保護(hù)上,各國存在不同立法選擇,其背后依據(jù)的法理基礎(chǔ)為意思表示解釋理論。多數(shù)國家規(guī)定不得對抗善意第三人,但在第三人范圍、善意和惡意的判斷以及不得對抗的理解上仍需進(jìn)一步明確。第三部分,通謀虛偽表示的中國立法現(xiàn)狀及司法實踐。惡意串通行為和以合法形式掩蓋非法目的通常被認(rèn)為是我國民法中的通謀虛偽表示制度,但三者的內(nèi)涵各不相同。通過案例分析可見,我國的兩個特有制度在實踐中的效果并不理想,易導(dǎo)致法律適用的不確定性,且可以為包括通謀虛偽表示制度在內(nèi)的其他制度所替代。第四部分,我國通謀虛偽表示制度的重構(gòu)。今后在制定民法典時,應(yīng)當(dāng)引入通謀虛偽表示制度,取消現(xiàn)行法中惡意串通行為和以合法形式掩蓋非法目的的規(guī)定。在已經(jīng)建立善意取得制度的前提下,不必寫入不得對抗善意第三人的但書。在現(xiàn)行法的框架下,應(yīng)暫且以《民法通則》第55條第二款對通謀虛偽表示的效力進(jìn)行否定性評價。司法實踐中,法院對于惡意串通行為和以合法形式掩蓋非法目的適用應(yīng)當(dāng)有所限縮,將其作為兜底規(guī)定,優(yōu)先尋求更有針對性的法律規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The concept of collusion hypocrisy, which was first put forward by German civil law, has been used for reference by many civil law countries and regions such as Switzerland, Japan, South Korea and so on, and written into its civil law. There is no stipulation on it in the current civil law of our country, and the research on this system in the theoretical circle is not sufficient, and many of the problems are still controversial. In judicial practice, a series of "Yin and Yang contracts", "false mortgages" and other cases caused by conspiracy hypocrisy have caused some difficulties to the trial of the court. This article will comb and introduce the theory of conspiracy hypocrisy in detail, analyze and review the relevant system in the current civil law and its effect in judicial practice, and on this basis, This paper puts forward some suggestions on the construction of the system of collusion hypocrisy in the civil law of our country. The text of this paper is divided into four parts. The first part is a summary of collusion hypocrisy. As an important part of the defects in the expression of will, the defect of conspiracy to hypocrisy lies in the fact that neither of the parties wishes the expression of intention to have corresponding legal consequences, and its composition includes the existence of the expression of interest. There are three elements to show that the meaning is not true and that the ideographer conspires with the other party. The system of collusion hypocrisy is applicable to unilateral legal acts with a relative party, but should not be applied to legally registered acts of identity. The second part, the effect of collusion hypocrisy. Through the analysis of other countries' legislation cases, it can be seen that, because of the lack of inner true meaning, conspiracy hypocrisy is invalid between the parties. However, different countries have different legislative choices in the protection of the third party's trust, which is based on the theory of interpretation of intention on the basis of legal theory. Most countries stipulate that bona fide third parties should not be confronted, but further clarification is needed on the scope of third parties, good faith and malicious judgment, and understanding of non-confrontation. The third part, the current situation of Chinese legislation and judicial practice of collusion hypocrisy. Malicious collusion and cover-up of illegal purpose in legal form are usually regarded as the hypocritical expression system of collusion in China's civil law, but the connotations of the three are different. Through the case analysis, we can see that the effect of the two special systems in practice is not ideal, which can easily lead to the uncertainty of the application of the law, and can be replaced by other systems, including the system of collusion and hypocrisy. The fourth part, the reconstruction of the system of collusion hypocrisy. In the future, the system of collusion hypocrisy should be introduced in the formulation of civil code, and the provisions of malicious collusion in the current law should be abolished and the illegal purpose should be covered up in the legal form. A proviso against bona fide third parties should not be written on the premise that a bona fide acquisition system has been established. Under the framework of current law, the second paragraph of Article 55 of the General principles of Civil Law should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the hypocrisy of collusion. In judicial practice, the court should limit the malicious collusion act and cover up the illegal purpose by the legal form, regard it as the bottom regulation, and seek more targeted legal provisions first.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 李源源;;論串通虛偽行為[J];法制與社會;2008年22期

2 高治;;通謀虛偽表示下合同的效力及第三人權(quán)益保護(hù)[J];人民司法;2011年03期

3 郭平宜;;論故意非真實意思表示[J];河北法學(xué);2008年09期

4 王群;峗斌;;通謀虛偽行為探析[J];福建警察學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年01期

5 崔聰聰;陳寧寧;;故意的意思表示不一致之比較[J];社會科學(xué)家;2008年09期

6 楊代雄;;惡意串通行為的立法取舍——以惡意串通、脫法行為與通謀虛偽表示的關(guān)系為視角[J];比較法研究;2014年04期

7 余能斌;;經(jīng)濟合同的概念及其法律特征[J];法學(xué)研究資料;1982年06期

8 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 嚴(yán)小艷;通謀虛偽表示研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

2 張萍;通謀虛偽表示研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

3 魏然君;通謀虛偽表示研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

4 黃永煥;通謀虛偽表示研究[D];北京交通大學(xué);2015年

5 黃若晨;論通謀虛偽表示及其制度重構(gòu)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

6 萬中亮;論虛偽意思表示的類型[D];武漢大學(xué);2005年

7 王晨飛;通謀虛偽表示之無效與第三人之保護(hù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：2187662