【摘要】：一直以來,企業(yè)間的借貸存在著較多的負(fù)面因素,比如利率不穩(wěn)定,沒有專項(xiàng)的管理制度以及資金的來源與流向難以監(jiān)管等等,這些都對(duì)金融市場(chǎng)造成了一些不利影響,所以企業(yè)間的借貸曾經(jīng)一度被法律排除在外,但是,企業(yè)的發(fā)展又需要拓寬融資渠道來緩解資金緊缺對(duì)生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)的壓力,這就導(dǎo)致實(shí)際生活中的企業(yè)間借貸糾紛案件不斷呈現(xiàn)上升趨勢(shì),其效力的認(rèn)定問題也亟需解決。好在,最高人民法院出臺(tái)的《關(guān)于審理民間借貸案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》將企業(yè)納入了民間借貸的主體范疇,首次正式的承認(rèn)了企業(yè)間借貸合同的效力。然而,放開了企業(yè)間的借貸合同,雖然拓寬了企業(yè)融資的渠道,給企業(yè)融資難尋找到了新的突破口,但是放開并非放任,考慮到金融市場(chǎng)的發(fā)展前景,該司法解釋在承認(rèn)其效力的同時(shí)限制借貸的資金只能用于企業(yè)的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)。本身企業(yè)間的借貸合同屬于《合同法》的范疇,其效力認(rèn)定即要排除《合同法》中對(duì)合同無效的一般規(guī)定,又要不違反該司法解釋中對(duì)借貸合同效力的相關(guān)規(guī)定,還需要符合即將實(shí)施的《民法總則》中對(duì)民事法律行為有效條件的規(guī)定。因此,綜合上述內(nèi)容,企業(yè)間借貸合同的有效應(yīng)符合三個(gè)條件:一是借貸的主體適格,雙方均具有相應(yīng)的民事行為能力;二是借貸雙方的意思表示真實(shí),并不存在意思表示瑕疵;三是借貸合同的內(nèi)容具有合法性,即不違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定、不違背公序良俗以及司法解釋中關(guān)于資金的特別規(guī)定。本文就從上述三個(gè)有效條件出發(fā),選取浙江省高院的案例,溫州高新園區(qū)海融民間資本管理股份有限公司與新疆德源生物工程有限公司借貸糾紛一案,來分析論述企業(yè)間借貸合同有效的認(rèn)定條件。
[Abstract]:Over the years, there are many negative factors in inter-firm lending, such as unstable interest rates, lack of a special management system, difficulty in monitoring the sources and flows of funds, and so on. All of these have had some adverse effects on the financial markets. Therefore, inter-firm lending was once ruled out by law. However, the development of enterprises needs to broaden the financing channels to ease the pressure on production and operation caused by the shortage of funds. This leads to a rising trend of inter-firm loan disputes in real life, and the determination of its effectiveness needs to be solved. Fortunately, the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on the application of the law in the trial of private lending cases bring enterprises into the main category of private lending, and formally recognize the validity of the inter-firm loan contract for the first time. However, by liberalizing the loan contracts between enterprises, although it has widened the channels for enterprise financing and made it difficult for enterprises to find a new breakthrough in financing, liberalization is not laissez-faire, considering the development prospects of the financial market. This judicial interpretation, while recognizing its effectiveness, limits the amount of money borrowed can only be used in the production and operation of enterprises. The loan contract between enterprises belongs to the scope of contract Law. The validity of the contract is to exclude the general provisions of the contract Law on invalidity of the contract, and not to violate the relevant provisions of the judicial interpretation on the validity of the loan contract. It also needs to conform to the effective conditions of civil legal acts in the General principles of Civil Law to be implemented. Therefore, synthesizing the above contents, the effect of the inter-firm loan contract meets three conditions: first, the subject of the loan is qualified, both of them have the corresponding civil capacity; the other is that the intention of the borrower and the borrower is true. Third, the content of the loan contract has legitimacy, that is, it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws, administrative regulations, public order, good customs and special provisions on funds in judicial interpretation. Based on the above three effective conditions, this paper selects the case of Zhejiang Provincial High Courtyard, the case of a loan dispute between Wenzhou Hi-tech Park Hailong Private Capital Management Co., Ltd and Xinjiang Deyuan Bioengineering Co., Ltd. To analyze and discuss the validity of inter-firm loan contract conditions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陸俊偉;;公司股東會(huì)決議性質(zhì)研究[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年S2期

2 高峰;;公司法人“經(jīng)營(yíng)范圍”研究[J];現(xiàn)代商業(yè);2015年28期

3 王林清;;論企業(yè)間借貸正當(dāng)性的法律分析[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年05期

4 劉楊;劉靜;;金融開放背景下企業(yè)間借貸法律問題研究[J];中國律師;2013年11期

5 史亞楠;;合同生效中“意思表示真實(shí)”要件探究[J];中外企業(yè)家;2013年23期

6 黃忠;;企業(yè)間借貸合同無效論之檢討[J];清華法學(xué);2013年04期

7 金明;;非金融機(jī)構(gòu)貸款人融資機(jī)制研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年03期

8 岳彩申;;民間借貸規(guī)制的重點(diǎn)及立法建議[J];中國法學(xué);2011年05期

9 劉凱湘;夏小雄;;論違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范的合同效力——?dú)v史考察與原因分析[J];中國法學(xué);2011年01期

10 張國平;;論外資企業(yè)和我國企業(yè)法制的協(xié)調(diào)[J];南京社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 何建;公司意思表示研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

2 馬東;公司法人行為能力研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

3 邢丹;關(guān)聯(lián)企業(yè)破產(chǎn)法律制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 宣禮揚(yáng);企業(yè)間借貸法律規(guī)制研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2016年

2 徐冬家;《公司法》上的決議效力分析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

3 賴長(zhǎng)炳;企業(yè)借貸的效力探究[D];寧波大學(xué);2015年

4 夏泠;企業(yè)間借貸合同效力研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

5 梁倩;非金融企業(yè)間借貸行為正當(dāng)性及法律規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

6 王浩;民間借貸資金來源與流向的監(jiān)管[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

7 羅歡歡;企業(yè)間借貸行為法律規(guī)制及立法研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

8 孫曉光;企業(yè)間借貸的法律效力研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2256656