發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-12 07:24

  本文選題：破產(chǎn)管理人 + 解除權(quán)�。� 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：破產(chǎn)管理人行使待履行合同解除權(quán)時(shí)應(yīng)該遵守以下原則，即破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)利益最大化原則、利益平衡原則、法律政策目標(biāo)統(tǒng)一原則和必要性原則。在沒有明確立法規(guī)定的情況下，破產(chǎn)管理人行使待履行合同解除權(quán)時(shí)應(yīng)該分別對(duì)上述原則進(jìn)行考察。破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)利益最大化原則是破產(chǎn)法的一般性原則，破產(chǎn)管理人不得解除破產(chǎn)人作為債權(quán)人的單務(wù)合同即體現(xiàn)了該原則；利益平衡原則是美國破產(chǎn)法限制破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)行使的一項(xiàng)原則。我國也有學(xué)者主張將利益平衡原則作為限制破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)的一般原則，，所有權(quán)保留合同以及知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)許可合同中破產(chǎn)管理人解除權(quán)所受到的限制即反映了利益平衡原則；法律政策目標(biāo)統(tǒng)一原則是指在不違反其他原則的前提下，如果解除合同會(huì)使其他相關(guān)部門法的政策目標(biāo)無法實(shí)現(xiàn)，則破產(chǎn)管理人不得解除合同，非債權(quán)合同、保證合同、租賃合同、勞動(dòng)合同以及人壽保險(xiǎn)合同中對(duì)破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)限制的規(guī)定均體現(xiàn)了這一原則；必要性原則是指破產(chǎn)管理人在行使待履行合同解除權(quán)之前，應(yīng)考察解除合同是否是解決問題的唯一方法，如果可以采取其他方法處理當(dāng)事人之間的關(guān)系而沒有必要一定要行使解除權(quán)時(shí)，則不應(yīng)行使解除權(quán)，“待履行合同范圍”以及合同法可解除合同范圍對(duì)管理人解除權(quán)的限制即屬于這種情況。在法律沒有明確規(guī)定的情況下，破產(chǎn)管理人行使待履行合同解除權(quán)時(shí)應(yīng)該分別對(duì)上述原則進(jìn)行考察。 另外，破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)的行使還應(yīng)該受以下幾個(gè)方面的限制：第一，“待履行合同范圍”對(duì)破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)的限制。“待履行合同”是指破產(chǎn)債務(wù)人和另一方當(dāng)事人沒有或沒有完全履行的合同，當(dāng)事人一方或雙方履行完畢的合同不包含在“待履行合同范圍”之內(nèi)，破產(chǎn)管理人不得解除�！奥男型戤叀笔侵负贤鹘o付義務(wù)和從給付義務(wù)都履行完畢。我國立法和理論上對(duì)“待履行合同范圍”的界定基本采取上述標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但是司法審判實(shí)踐中卻采用不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其判決的公正和合理性值得商榷。第二，合同法“可解除范圍”對(duì)破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)的限制。合同法上不得予以解除的合同在破產(chǎn)法中應(yīng)當(dāng)仍然適用，即破產(chǎn)管理人不得解除破產(chǎn)人作為債權(quán)人的單務(wù)合同以及非債權(quán)合同。第三，合同的特殊類型對(duì)破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)的限制。其中包括保證合同、所有權(quán)保留合同、租賃合同、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)許可使用合同、勞動(dòng)合同和人壽保險(xiǎn)合同。在保證人破產(chǎn)的保證合同中，對(duì)保證人破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)的限制有利于同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)破產(chǎn)法和擔(dān)保法的政策目標(biāo)；在出賣人破產(chǎn)的所有權(quán)保留合同中，對(duì)管理人解除權(quán)的限制有利于防止買受人遭到重大損失；對(duì)出租方破產(chǎn)的租賃合同管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)進(jìn)行限制是破產(chǎn)法延續(xù)非破產(chǎn)法規(guī)則對(duì)租賃權(quán)特殊保護(hù)的結(jié)果；在許可人破產(chǎn)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)許可使用合同中，對(duì)破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)進(jìn)行限制是保護(hù)技術(shù)創(chuàng)新的需要；對(duì)勞動(dòng)合同、人壽保險(xiǎn)合同中的破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)進(jìn)行限制是出于保護(hù)勞動(dòng)者、被保險(xiǎn)人的特殊目的。從我國破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)限制體系的角度看，保證合同、租賃合同、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)許可使用合同需要由司法解釋進(jìn)一步明確規(guī)定，以進(jìn)一步完善我國的破產(chǎn)管理人待履行合同解除權(quán)限制體系。
[Abstract]:The bankruptcy administrator should abide by the following principles, namely, the principle of maximizing the interests of the bankruptcy property, the principle of balance of interests, the unified principle of the objective of the legal policy and the principle of necessity. In the absence of clear legislative provisions, the bankruptcy administrator should carry out the above principles respectively when the bankruptcy administrator exercises the cancellation of the contract. The principle of the maximum benefit of the bankruptcy property is the general principle of the bankruptcy law. The bankruptcy administrator can not relieve the bankruptcy person as a single contract of the creditor, which embodies the principle. The principle of interest balance is a principle that the bankruptcy law of the United States limits the bankruptcy administrator to exercise the right to discharge the contract. The principle of balance is the general principle that limits the bankruptcy administrator to discharge the right to discharge the contract. The restriction on the right to terminate the bankruptcy administrator in the contract of ownership and the right to rescind the bankruptcy administrator in the license contract of the intellectual property rights reflects the principle of balance of interests. The unified principle of the target of legal policy refers to the termination of the contract without contrary to the other principles. The policy objectives of other relevant department laws can not be realized, then the insolvency administrator may not cancel the contract, non creditor's rights contract, guarantee contract, lease contract, labor contract and life insurance contract, which embodies this principle for the insolvency administrator to fulfill the limitation of the right to cancel the contract; the principle of necessity refers to the insolvency administrator. Before the termination of the contract, it is necessary to examine whether the termination of the contract is the only way to solve the problem. If it is possible to take other methods to deal with the relationship between the parties without the need to exercise the termination of the contract, the right to rescind the contract should not be exercised. "The scope of the contract to be fulfilled" and the contract law can dissolve the scope of the contract to the manager. The restriction of the division of power is the case. When the law does not specify clearly, the bankruptcy administrator should examine the above principles separately when exercising the right to discharge the contract.
In addition, the exercise of the right to rescind the contract of the bankruptcy administrator should also be limited by the following aspects: first, "the scope of the contract to be fulfilled" limits the right of the bankruptcy administrator to discharge the contract. "The contract to be performed" means that the bankruptcy debtor and the other party do not have or have not fully performed the contract, one party to the party. The contract is not included in the scope of the contract to be fulfilled. The bankruptcy administrator shall not be relieved. "Completion of the contract" refers to the completion of the contract's main payment obligation and payment obligation. However, the justice and rationality of its judgment are questionable by the adoption of different standards. Second, the limitation of the "relieving scope" of the contract law on the right of the bankruptcy administrator to be discharged from the contract. The contract which can not be terminated in the contract law should still be applied in the bankruptcy law, that is, the bankruptcy administrator shall not remove the single contract of the bankrupt as the creditor. And the non creditor contract. Third, the special type of the contract limits the right of the insolvency administrator to discharge the contract. It includes the guarantee of the contract, the retention of title, the lease contract, the use of the intellectual property license, the labor contract and the life insurance contract. In the guarantee contract of the guarantor's bankruptcy, the guarantor of the bankruptcy administrator is to be performed. The limitation of the right to rescind the contract is conducive to the simultaneous realization of the policy objectives of the bankruptcy law and the guarantee law. In the contract of retention of title for the seller's bankruptcy, the limitation on the right to rescind the manager is beneficial to prevent the buyer from being subjected to major losses; the restriction on the right to rescind the contract manager for the lease contract of the lessor is the bankruptcy law. It is the result of the special protection of the leasehold by the rules of the non bankruptcy law; in the contract for the license to use the intellectual property rights of the Licensor, the limitation on the right of the bankruptcy administrator to be discharged from the contract is the need for the protection of the technological innovation; the limitation of the bankruptcy trustee in the life insurance contract, in the life insurance contract, is the limitation of the right to discharge the contract. In view of the special purpose of protecting the laborers and the insured, from the point of view of the limitation system of the rescission right of the bankruptcy administrator in China, the guarantee of the contract, the lease contract and the license for the use of intellectual property should be further defined by the judicial interpretation in order to further improve the system of the limit system for the termination of the contract by the bankruptcy administrator of our country.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D922.291.92;D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 韓長(zhǎng)印;破產(chǎn)宣告對(duì)未履行合同的效力初探[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1997年03期

2 王欣新;余艷萍;;論破產(chǎn)程序中待履行合同的處理方式及法律效果[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年06期

3 許德風(fēng);;論破產(chǎn)中尚未履行完畢的合同[J];法學(xué)家;2009年06期

4 許德風(fēng);;破產(chǎn)法基本原則再認(rèn)識(shí)[J];法學(xué);2009年08期

5 王欣;齊明;;論待履行合同在破產(chǎn)程序中的處分[J];東北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年05期

6 孫宏濤;何睿;;淺論破產(chǎn)宣告對(duì)未履行合同的影響[J];淮陰工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

7 李繞娟;;企業(yè)破產(chǎn)過程中專利實(shí)施許可合同的處置分析[J];科技與法律;2008年06期

8 王治江;美國破產(chǎn)法中的待履行合同[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

9 孫學(xué)致;鄭倩;;生成于法條與政策之間的裁判理性[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

10 劉廷華;;破產(chǎn)程序中待履行合同的處理[J];南京航空航天大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年04期

本文編號(hào)：1877684