【摘要】：沉默欺詐是一種以不作為的方式構(gòu)成的欺詐。我國(guó)不僅在正式的法律法規(guī)中并未明確提及,學(xué)界對(duì)此亦探討甚少。沉默本身是一種純粹的不作為,相對(duì)于作為而言,法院要從外觀上認(rèn)定其構(gòu)成欺詐存在困難,隨著沉默欺詐的越發(fā)常見(jiàn),各國(guó)開(kāi)始普通以先合同告知義務(wù)(以下簡(jiǎn)稱“告知義務(wù)”)的存在作為可認(rèn)定沉默構(gòu)成欺詐的前提,進(jìn)而認(rèn)定欺詐成立。沉默欺詐除需以告知義務(wù)為前提外,亦需滿足一般欺詐的構(gòu)成要件。本文創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)在于對(duì)沉默欺詐認(rèn)定的具體參考要素,沉默欺詐的認(rèn)定一直都是難題,理論也只能列出參考的要素。在翻閱了眾多的案件后,筆者試圖總結(jié)出司法實(shí)踐中能夠直接參考的幾大因素,其能夠運(yùn)用到解決實(shí)際問(wèn)題中去,望有助于科學(xué)合理地建構(gòu)未來(lái)民法典的沉默欺詐理論。筆者認(rèn)為誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則是沉默欺詐的主要理論基礎(chǔ),因誠(chéng)信原則的存在故在某些情形下當(dāng)事人有告知的義務(wù),從而形成沉默欺詐成立的前提。我國(guó)對(duì)于沉默欺詐在法律規(guī)定和理論學(xué)說(shuō)中都未得到足夠的重視,而世界上其他國(guó)家大部分已對(duì)沉默欺詐有著較為成熟的理論與實(shí)踐,故域外的理論與實(shí)踐能夠作為我國(guó)沉默欺詐理論發(fā)展的參考,能夠在我國(guó)基本國(guó)情的基礎(chǔ)上引入一些先進(jìn)的思想,推動(dòng)我國(guó)沉默欺詐理論和實(shí)踐的發(fā)展;第三部分是我國(guó)沉默欺詐的現(xiàn)狀,主要介紹了我國(guó)現(xiàn)在關(guān)于沉默欺詐的理論和立法以及司法實(shí)踐的情況,要先對(duì)現(xiàn)狀有所了解,才能發(fā)現(xiàn)問(wèn)題,尋找原因,從而解決問(wèn)題實(shí)現(xiàn)進(jìn)步;第四部分是筆者主要的觀點(diǎn),對(duì)我國(guó)未來(lái)民法典中沉默欺詐之重構(gòu)進(jìn)行了論述,對(duì)沉默欺詐的理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行梳理,著重論述了沉默欺詐的構(gòu)成要件、認(rèn)定以及抗辯理由,在已在的學(xué)說(shuō)基礎(chǔ)上闡述筆這的觀點(diǎn)。這兒個(gè)問(wèn)題在學(xué)界中與實(shí)踐中都有著較大爭(zhēng)議,并發(fā)展出不同學(xué)說(shuō),筆者盡量在我國(guó)現(xiàn)有法律體系基礎(chǔ)上提出最適合我國(guó)實(shí)踐適用的規(guī)則。我國(guó)現(xiàn)在對(duì)沉默欺詐尚未引起足夠的重.視,導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐中很多當(dāng)事人不能通過(guò)法律來(lái)尋求正義,法律規(guī)定與理論學(xué)說(shuō)的缺乏亦導(dǎo)致法院在判決過(guò)程中無(wú)法維持判決的穩(wěn)定,無(wú)法從法律上來(lái)支持當(dāng)事人的合理訴求,保護(hù)他們的合法權(quán)益。所以我國(guó)沉默欺詐急需納入欺詐的法律規(guī)制范疇內(nèi),以正式法律條文的形式對(duì)受害人予以保護(hù)。
[Abstract]:Silence fraud is a kind of fraud constituted by omission. China is not only not explicitly mentioned in the formal laws and regulations, but also rarely discussed in the academic circles. Silence itself is a pure omission, and it is difficult for the court to determine in appearance that it constitutes fraud, as silence fraud becomes more and more common, Countries begin to take the existence of the obligation of prior contract (hereinafter referred to as the obligation of notification) as the premise that silence constitutes fraud, and then determine that fraud is valid. Silent fraud should not only take the obligation of notification as the premise, but also satisfy the constituent elements of general fraud. The innovation of this paper lies in the specific reference elements of the identification of silence fraud. The identification of silence fraud has always been a difficult problem, and the theory can only list the reference elements. After reading many cases, the author tries to sum up several factors which can be referred to directly in judicial practice, which can be applied to solve practical problems, hoping to help to construct the silent fraud theory of the future civil code scientifically and reasonably. The author thinks that the principle of good faith is the main theoretical basis of silent fraud. Due to the existence of the principle of good faith, the parties have the obligation to inform under certain circumstances, thus forming the premise of the establishment of silent fraud. Our country has not paid enough attention to silence fraud in the legal provisions and theoretical theories, but most of the other countries in the world have more mature theory and practice on silence fraud. Therefore, the theory and practice outside the territory can be used as a reference for the development of the theory of silence fraud in China, and some advanced ideas can be introduced on the basis of the basic national conditions of our country to promote the development of the theory and practice of silence fraud in China. The third part is the present situation of silence fraud in our country, which mainly introduces the theory and legislation of silence fraud and the situation of judicial practice. Only by understanding the present situation can we find out the problems and find out the reasons. In order to solve the problem to achieve progress; The fourth part is the author's main point of view, discusses the reconstruction of silence fraud in the future civil code of our country, combs the theoretical basis of silence fraud, and emphatically discusses the constituent elements, identification and defense reasons of silence fraud. This view is elaborated on the basis of the theory already in place. This issue is controversial both in academic circles and in practice, and has developed different theories. The author tries his best to put forward the most suitable rules for China's practice on the basis of the existing legal system in China. At present, our country has not given enough weight to silence fraud. As a result, many parties in practice cannot seek justice through the law, and the lack of legal provisions and theoretical theories has also led to the court's inability to maintain the stability of the judgment in the course of adjudication and to support the reasonable demands of the parties from the law. Protect their legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, silent fraud in our country needs to be brought into the scope of legal regulation of fraud to protect the victims in the form of formal legal provisions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.35

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 金柏莉·D·克拉維克;凱瑟琳·齊勒;牟憲魁;王盛雅;;英美法上的說(shuō)明義務(wù)與民事責(zé)任(上)[J];山東大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2013年00期

2 左登;;論不作為欺詐認(rèn)定——基于民法原則和法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的分析[J];湘潭師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年01期

3 孫良國(guó);;不動(dòng)產(chǎn)交易信息披露義務(wù)研究——基礎(chǔ)框架的設(shè)定[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年01期

4 牟憲魁;;說(shuō)明義務(wù)違反與沉默的民事詐欺構(gòu)成——以“信息上的弱者”之保護(hù)為中心[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年04期

5 趙萬(wàn)一;民法公平原則的倫理分析[J];重慶社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年02期

6 胡呂銀;論沉默構(gòu)成詐欺的條件與認(rèn)定[J];法治論叢;2003年03期

7 張淳;;淺議對(duì)告知義務(wù)不履行與沉默欺詐[J];南京大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2001年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 陳本林;沉默欺詐研究[D];南京大學(xué);2013年

2 李登峰;論沉默欺詐[D];廈門大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2431019