【摘要】：《民法總則》同時(shí)規(guī)定了虛假表示與惡意串通,一新一舊,前者并沒(méi)有取代后者。二者均為民事法律行為無(wú)效的原因,但法理基礎(chǔ)并不一樣。在虛假表示場(chǎng)合,法律之所以使民事法律行為無(wú)效,是因?yàn)殡p方當(dāng)事人均沒(méi)有受其拘束的意旨。而在惡意串通場(chǎng)合,則須區(qū)分情形分別說(shuō)明。在行為人為一方當(dāng)事人的代理人場(chǎng)合,其與相對(duì)人惡意串通,損害被代理人合法權(quán)益,是因?yàn)閷?duì)于被代理人而言該民事法律行為不符合其真實(shí)意思,存在瑕疵。在行為人為當(dāng)事人場(chǎng)合,盡管就其及相對(duì)人的意思表示而言均無(wú)瑕疵,法律使之無(wú)效,則是由于存在損害他人合法權(quán)益的主觀惡意。至于一方當(dāng)事人與第三人串通的情形,原則上不在惡意串通規(guī)則的規(guī)范范圍之內(nèi),《拍賣(mài)法》等特別法另有規(guī)定的依其規(guī)定,如果構(gòu)成第三人欺詐,可依《民法總則》第149條發(fā)生撤銷(xiāo)權(quán)。民事法律行為因虛假意思表示而無(wú)效屬于絕對(duì)無(wú)效,善意第三人的保護(hù)依《物權(quán)法》第106條等其他法律規(guī)定處理。
[Abstract]:The General principles of Civil Law also provide for false representation and malicious collusion, new and old, the former does not replace the latter. Both are the reasons for the invalidity of civil legal acts, but the legal basis is not the same. On the occasion of false representation, the reason why the law invalidates the civil legal act is that neither party is bound by its intention. In the case of malicious collusion, it is necessary to distinguish the circumstances respectively. In the case where the actor is a party's agent, his malicious collusion with the relative party damages the legitimate rights and interests of the principal, because the civil legal act does not accord with its true meaning and has defects to the principal. In the case where the actor is a party, although there is no defect in the expression of his or her intention and that the law makes it invalid, it is due to the existence of subjective malice that damages the legitimate rights and interests of others. As for the case of collusion between a party and a third party, in principle, it is not within the scope of the rules of malicious collusion. In accordance with the provisions of the special law, such as the auction Law, if it constitutes fraud by a third party, The right of rescission may occur in accordance with Article 149 of the General provisions of the Civil Code. Civil legal act is absolutely invalid because of false expression of will, and the protection of bona fide third party is dealt with according to Article 106 of Real right Law and other laws.
【作者單位】： 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 魯夫;“引人誤解的虛假表示”雜談[J];工商行政管理;1997年15期

2 魯夫;“引人誤解的虛假表示”雜談(續(xù))[J];工商行政管理;1997年16期

3 清風(fēng);;受害人可獲得哪些雙倍或多倍賠償[J];農(nóng)村新技術(shù);2012年03期

4 魯夫;反向仿冒淺論(續(xù))[J];工商行政管理;1998年16期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 江蘇省無(wú)錫市宜興工商局 沈軍　周士明;淺談虛假表示案件的認(rèn)定及處理對(duì)策[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2013年

2 案例編寫(xiě)人 江蘇省高級(jí)人民法院 沈燕;民事法律行為虛假表示真意保留的判斷[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

3 記者 賈s，

本文編號(hào)：2197160