【摘要】：實(shí)際施工人是指不具備建設(shè)工程施工資質(zhì),和承包人簽訂合同并實(shí)際進(jìn)行工程建設(shè)的施工主體。由于其不具備相應(yīng)資質(zhì),在司法實(shí)踐中通常面臨人員傷亡賠償、工程款結(jié)算等法律糾紛。法院處理這些糾紛時(shí),在法律適用方面出現(xiàn)了諸多問題,主要表現(xiàn)為實(shí)際施工人和其他施工主體難以區(qū)分、權(quán)利義務(wù)內(nèi)容不明確,行使權(quán)利的方式有爭(zhēng)議。產(chǎn)生上述問題的原因在于:一是理論研究不深入,無(wú)法為實(shí)踐做出指導(dǎo);二是相關(guān)法律法規(guī)對(duì)實(shí)際施工人的類型和發(fā)包人、承包人承擔(dān)責(zé)任方面的規(guī)定不甚完善,與建筑工程領(lǐng)域錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜的法律關(guān)系相脫節(jié)。要解決實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)法律適用中的問題,需明確實(shí)際施工人與發(fā)包人、承包人之間的法律關(guān)系,厘清實(shí)際施工人主張權(quán)益的法理基礎(chǔ),完善相關(guān)實(shí)體與程序規(guī)范,為法律適用提供可操作性的依據(jù)。本文分為五部分,具體內(nèi)容為:第一部分:是實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)法律適用的現(xiàn)狀和問題。通過(guò)分析實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)法律適用的現(xiàn)狀,結(jié)合相關(guān)案例,梳理出法律適用中的問題,主要有實(shí)際施工人的法律地位不明確、權(quán)利義務(wù)模糊及行使權(quán)利的方式存在爭(zhēng)議。正是由于這些問題,導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中法律適用的混亂。第二部分:分析實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)法律適用問題的原因。在立法方面,涉及實(shí)際施工人的條文相對(duì)簡(jiǎn)單,在實(shí)踐中的操作性不強(qiáng)。在理論研究方面,學(xué)者對(duì)實(shí)際施工人主張權(quán)益的理論基礎(chǔ)存在較大爭(zhēng)議,主要有過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任說(shuō)、不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�說(shuō)、事實(shí)契約說(shuō)、突破合同相對(duì)性說(shuō),相關(guān)理論研究的紛爭(zhēng)無(wú)法給實(shí)際施工法律適用提供明確的引導(dǎo)。第三部分:分析實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)的法理基礎(chǔ)。通過(guò)分析建設(shè)工程施工合同中實(shí)際施工人與發(fā)包人、承包人的關(guān)系,明確發(fā)包人、承包人承擔(dān)責(zé)任是基于不同的理論基礎(chǔ)。結(jié)合民法中債的相對(duì)性突破理論,認(rèn)為發(fā)包人承擔(dān)責(zé)任實(shí)為合同相對(duì)性的突破。承包人與實(shí)際施工人簽訂的合同因?yàn)檫`反了法律法規(guī)的禁止性規(guī)定而無(wú)效,實(shí)際施工人可以根據(jù)合同無(wú)效的處理方法,要求承包人承擔(dān)責(zé)任。第四部分:分析實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)在實(shí)踐中的具體情形。在保護(hù)實(shí)際施工人的合法權(quán)益時(shí),也應(yīng)當(dāng)防止其濫用權(quán)利,因此要嚴(yán)格限制實(shí)際施工人的范圍,明確施工企業(yè)的內(nèi)部承包組織、勞務(wù)分包組織、農(nóng)民工不屬于其范疇。結(jié)合建設(shè)工程優(yōu)先受償權(quán)的性質(zhì)認(rèn)為實(shí)際施工人不能成為此優(yōu)先權(quán)的主體。第五部分:根據(jù)前文的分析,對(duì)完善實(shí)際施工人權(quán)益保護(hù)的法律適用提出了相關(guān)建議,主要包括實(shí)體和程序兩個(gè)方面。在程序方面需要明確實(shí)際施工人行使權(quán)利的方式、行使權(quán)利的限制。在實(shí)體方面需要明確發(fā)包人的責(zé)任和工程款的范圍。同時(shí)借鑒國(guó)外有關(guān)建設(shè)工程擔(dān)保制度,建議我國(guó)設(shè)立相應(yīng)的擔(dān)保制度,從源頭上保障工程款的支付。
[Abstract]:The actual constructor refers to the construction subject who does not possess the construction qualification and signs the contract with the contractor and carries out the actual construction. Because it does not possess the corresponding qualifications, it usually faces legal disputes in judicial practice, such as compensation for casualties, settlement of project funds, and so on. When the court deals with these disputes, there are many problems in the application of the law, which mainly show that the actual constructor and other construction subjects are difficult to distinguish, the content of rights and obligations is not clear, and the way of exercising rights is controversial. The reasons for the above problems lie in: first, the theoretical research is not deep enough to guide the practice; second, the relevant laws and regulations are not perfect for the types of actual constructors and contractors, the contractor to assume responsibility, It is out of touch with the complicated legal relationship in the field of construction engineering. In order to solve the problems in the application of the law for the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructors, it is necessary to clarify the legal relations between the actual constructors, the contractors and the contractors, clarify the legal basis of the actual constructors' claims of rights and interests, and perfect the relevant entities and procedural norms. To provide the operational basis for the application of the law. This paper is divided into five parts, the specific content is: the first part: the present situation and the question of the application of the law of the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructor. By analyzing the current situation of the legal application of the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructors and combing out the problems in the application of the law in combination with relevant cases, the main problems are that the legal status of the actual constructors is not clear, the rights and obligations are vague and the ways of exercising the rights are controversial. It is precisely because of these problems that leads to confusion in the application of the law in judicial practice. The second part analyzes the reasons of the application of the law of the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructors. In the aspect of legislation, the provisions concerning actual constructors are relatively simple and not operable in practice. In terms of theoretical research, scholars have a great controversy over the theoretical basis of the actual constructors' claims of rights and interests. They mainly include the theory of fault liability, the theory of improper enrichment, the theory of factual contract, the theory of breaking through the relativity of contract. The disputes of relevant theoretical research can not provide clear guidance for the application of practical construction law. The third part analyzes the legal basis of the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructors. By analyzing the relationship between the actual constructor and the contractor in the construction contract of construction project, it is clear that the responsibility of the contractor and the contractor is based on different theoretical basis. Combined with the theory of the relativity breakthrough of debt in civil law, the author thinks that the contract relativity breakthrough is the responsibility of the contract issuer. The contract signed by the contractor and the actual constructor is invalid because of the violation of the prohibited provisions of laws and regulations, and the actual constructor may require the contractor to bear the responsibility according to the treatment of the invalidity of the contract. The fourth part: analyzes the concrete situation of the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructor in practice. In protecting the legitimate rights and interests of actual constructors, we should also prevent them from abusing their rights, so we should strictly limit the scope of actual constructors, make clear the internal contracting organizations of construction enterprises, labor subcontracting organizations, and migrant workers do not belong to their category. According to the nature of the priority right of construction project, the actual constructor can not be the subject of this priority. The fifth part: according to the above analysis, the author puts forward the relevant suggestions to perfect the legal application of the protection of the rights and interests of the actual constructors, mainly including two aspects: the entity and the procedure. In the aspect of procedure, it is necessary to clarify the ways and limitations of the actual constructors to exercise their rights. The entity needs to clarify the responsibility of the contractor and the scope of the project. At the same time, it is suggested that our country should set up the corresponding guarantee system to guarantee the payment of project funds from the source.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南大學(xué)
【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4條

1 潘軍鋒;;建設(shè)工程施工合同案件審判疑難問題研究[J];法律適用;2014年07期

2 崔文星;;債的相對(duì)性規(guī)則辨析[J];河南財(cái)經(jīng)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

3 鄔硯;;實(shí)際施工人向發(fā)包人追索工程款的權(quán)利解析[J];人民司法;2013年09期

4 馬可健;陳峗;;建設(shè)工程合同無(wú)效的認(rèn)定及法律責(zé)任解析[J];建筑;2008年11期

，

本文編號(hào)：2218941