本文選題：電子商務(wù)交易平臺經(jīng)營者 + 法律性質(zhì)��； 參考：《北京工商大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文所稱的監(jiān)管義務(wù)是指電子商務(wù)平臺經(jīng)營者作為市場主體和電子商務(wù)社會共治的參與者,基于自治原則,對平臺內(nèi)經(jīng)營者及其交易活動履行監(jiān)督、檢查、約束、管理等義務(wù)的總稱,與行政法意義上政府部門的監(jiān)管職責(zé)并非同一性質(zhì)。文章主要通過五個部分對相關(guān)主題進(jìn)行探討。第一,引入一個權(quán)利人訴電子商務(wù)交易平臺經(jīng)營者——淘寶公司的侵權(quán)案件,提出問題:權(quán)利人在淘寶網(wǎng)上買到假貨,淘寶公司是否承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。第二,本文對平臺的法律性質(zhì)認(rèn)定為虛擬市場交易的經(jīng)營者,從法律性質(zhì)明確電子商務(wù)交易平臺承擔(dān)監(jiān)管義務(wù)的依據(jù),包括理論依據(jù)和實踐依據(jù)。理論依據(jù)包括:“收益與風(fēng)險相一致理論”、“風(fēng)險控制理論”、“效益最大化理論”、“安全保障義務(wù)理論”。實踐依據(jù)從現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定和平臺監(jiān)管的實踐及自治規(guī)則探討。第三,明確平臺監(jiān)管與政府監(jiān)管的區(qū)別、平臺承擔(dān)有限的監(jiān)管責(zé)任,平臺應(yīng)盡到合理、可預(yù)見范圍內(nèi)的監(jiān)管責(zé)任。第四,明確平臺監(jiān)管義務(wù)的內(nèi)容及認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),包括對平臺內(nèi)經(jīng)營者的監(jiān)管義務(wù)、對平臺內(nèi)發(fā)布的商品或服務(wù)信息的監(jiān)管義務(wù)、對通過平臺銷售質(zhì)量不合格或假冒偽劣商品的監(jiān)管義務(wù)以及對侵害知識產(chǎn)權(quán)或不正當(dāng)競爭行為的監(jiān)管義務(wù)。最后,探討平臺未履行監(jiān)管義務(wù)的民事責(zé)任,包括平臺未履行監(jiān)管義務(wù)承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任的情形、平臺所實行的過錯與無過錯責(zé)任并行的歸責(zé)原則以及對導(dǎo)致平臺承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任的情形進(jìn)行探討。經(jīng)過層層分析,確定電子商務(wù)交易平臺的監(jiān)管義務(wù)的具體內(nèi)容及界定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并提出立法建議。
[Abstract]:The regulatory obligation referred to in this paper refers to the e-commerce platform operators as the market subject and the participants of the e-commerce society, based on the principle of autonomy, the platform operators and their trading activities to perform supervision, inspection, restraint, The general term of management and other obligations is not the same nature as the supervisory responsibility of government departments in the sense of administrative law. This paper mainly discusses the relevant themes through five parts. First, it introduces a tort case of Taobao Company, which is the operator of electronic commerce trading platform, and puts forward the question: the obligee buys fake goods on Taobao, and Taobao Company is liable for compensation. Secondly, this paper regards the legal nature of the platform as the operator of the virtual market transaction. From the legal nature, it clarifies the basis of the supervision obligation of the electronic commerce trading platform, including the theoretical basis and the practical basis. The theoretical basis includes: "income and risk consistent theory", "risk control theory", "benefit maximization theory", "security obligation theory". Practice basis from the current legal provisions and platform supervision of the practice and autonomy rules. Third, make clear the difference between platform supervision and government supervision, the platform bears limited supervision responsibility, the platform should be reasonable, predictable scope of regulatory responsibility. Fourth, the content of the platform regulatory obligations and standards, including the platform operators regulatory obligations, the platform published goods or services information regulatory obligations, Regulatory obligations for the sale of unqualified or counterfeit goods through platforms and for infringement of intellectual property rights or unfair competition. Finally, it discusses the civil liability for the failure of the platform to comply with its regulatory obligations, including the situation in which the platform fails to fulfil its regulatory obligations and bears civil liability. This paper discusses the principle of concurrent liability of fault and no-fault liability and discusses the situation that leads to joint and several liability of platform. Through layer by layer analysis, the concrete content and standard of supervision obligation of electronic commerce trading platform are determined, and legislative suggestions are put forward.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京工商大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 趙克;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供者的責(zé)任承擔(dān)[J];人民司法;2014年19期

，

本文編號：1782292