【作者】 刘伟；

【导师】 刘佳星；

【作者基本信息】 东北财经大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 随着社会主义市场经济的蓬勃发展,合同在履行过程中出现僵局的情况屡见不鲜。司法实践中出现了合同僵局情况下,支持违约方解除合同的裁判。民法典编纂过程中,是否创设违约方解除合同规则也引发理论界和实务界的广泛讨论。本文从最高人民法院公布的“新宇公司诉冯玉梅商铺买卖合同纠纷案”引发的问题入手,对合同僵局中违约方解除规则进行系统的研究。全文由绪论、正文以及结语构成,对违约方合同解除规则从理论层面、现实需要等方面进行阐述。对合同僵局中赋予违约方合同解除权在理论上和裁判上存在的争议进行梳理,指出存在的主要问题,通过分析现行立法关于出现合同僵局如何解除合同之供给不足,进而探讨打破合同僵局,在特定情况下赋予违约方合同解除权之必要,并提出进一步完善的建议。文章共分为六个部分:第一部分是绪论。首先对选择合同僵局下违约方合同解除制度作研究的背景作简要的介绍,阐述了研究的意义。其次,对国内外学者的研究进行梳理分类,总结各种学术观点。最后说明对本篇论文研究的主要方法有实证分析法、比较分析法和文献分析法。第二部分是问题的提出。通过案例研究的方式,援引经典合同僵局案例——“新宇公司诉冯玉梅商铺买卖合同纠纷案”,引出本文所要探讨的违约方解除合同规则问题,实践中越来越多的合同僵局问题需要法律予以回应。同时,梳理《民法典》编纂过程创设该规则的过程,从合同编草案一审稿、二审稿到正式稿,违约方合同解除规则经历了从创立到删除的过程。虽然《民法典》第580条第2款似乎给出了解决问题的新途径,但由于其存在的不足和局限性,并不能完全解决问题。第三部分是理论研究。首先明确了合同僵局的定义,分析了合同僵局问题面临的困境。其次研究了合同解除权的相关理论,对合同解除的性质和功能进行了全面阐述,指出违约方享有的合同解除权应为形成诉权。最后研究了理论界关于违约方合同解除权的争议,梳理了“否定说”“肯定说”的主要观点。第四部分是法律争议。通过对司法实践中有关违约方合同解除的案例进行分析,对支持和反对违约方解除合同的裁判观点进行了归纳总结,从违约方能否享有法定解除权、是否违背诚信原则、是否带来不利影响等方面,梳理出司法实践中的裁判分歧。最后,从体系设置和适用范围上进行分析,指出《民法典》第580条第2款存在的不足。第五部分是赋予违约方合同解除权的正当性。主要是通过对情势变更原则、继续履行排除规则等制度进行分析,提出其无法有效解决合同僵局的理由,指出现有解决合同僵局的法律规定尚不完善,应当及时创设违约方合同解除规则;同时,对赋予违约方合同解除权的正当性进行分析,指出违约方合同解除规则并不违反诚实信用原则、合同严守原则以及现行法价值取向等。第六部分是完善合同僵局中违约方解除规则的建议。针对违约方解除合同规则之不足,明确可以通过司法解释的途径来补充完善这一规则,并提出完善建议。可以将出现合同僵局、违约方不存在恶意违约、继续履行显失公平等,作为规范违约方行使合同解除权的条件。通过比较合同解除的三种方式,提出司法解除方式作为违约方合同解除权行使方式最为合理。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the vigorous development of the socialist market economy,it is not uncommon to see deadlocks in the execution of contracts.In the case of a contract deadlock in judicial practice,support the ruling of the breaching party to terminate the contract.In the process of the compilation of the Civil Code,whether to create a rule for the breaching party to terminate the contract has also triggered extensive discussions in the theoretical and practical circles.This article starts with the problems caused by the "Xinyu Company v.Feng Yumei Store Sales Contract Dispute"announced by the Supreme People’s Court,and conducts a systematic study of the rules of dissolution of the breaching party in the contract deadlock.The full text is composed of the introduction,the main text and the conclusion,expounding the rules of the breaching party’s contract termination from the theoretical level and practical needs.It sorts out the theoretical and adjudication disputes in the contract deadlock that give the defaulting party the right to terminate the contract,points out the main problems,and analyzes the current legislation on how to terminate the contract when the contract deadlock occurs,and explores how to break the contract deadlock.Under certain circumstances,it is necessary to give the breaching party the right to terminate the contract and put forward suggestions for further improvement.The article is divided into six parts:The first part is the introduction.First,it briefly introduces the background of the research on the contract termination system of the defaulting party under the selection contract deadlock,and expounds the significance of the research.Secondly,it sorts out and categorizes the research of domestic and foreign scholars,and summarizes various academic viewpoints.Finally,it is explained that the main methods of this paper are empirical analysis,comparative analysis and literature analysis.The second part is the presentation of the problem.Through case study,citing the classic case of contract deadlock-"Xinyu Company v.Feng Yumei Store Sales Contract Dispute",to bring out the issue of the breaching party’s contract rules that this article discusses.In practice,more and more contract deadlock issues require legal response.At the same time,it sorts out the process of establishing the rules in the codification process of the "Civil Code",from the first review draft to the second review draft of the draft contract to the official draft,the breaching party’s contract termination rule has gone through the process from creation to deletion.Although the second paragraph of Article 580 of the Civil Code seems to give a new way to solve the problem,it cannot completely solve the problem due to its deficiencies and limitations.The third part is theoretical research.First,the definition of contract deadlock is clarified,and the dilemma faced by contract deadlock is analyzed.Secondly,it studies the relevant theories of the right to terminate the contract,comprehensively expounds the nature and function of the termination of the contract,and points out that the right to terminate the contract should be the right of litigation.Finally,it studies the disputes in the theoretical circles about the right to terminate the contract of the breaching party,and sorts out the main points of "negative" and "affirmative".The fourth part is legal disputes.Through the analysis of cases concerning the termination of the contract by the breaching party in judicial practice,a summary of the opinions of the judgment supporting and opposing the termination of the contract by the breaching party is summarized,from whether the breaching party enjoys the statutory right of termination,whether it violates the principle of good faith,and whether it brings disadvantages In terms of influence,etc.,sort out the judgment differences in judicial practice.Finally,from the analysis of the system setting and scope of application,it points out the deficiencies in Article 580,paragraph 2 of the Civil Code.The fifth part is the legitimacy of giving the breaching party the right to terminate the contract.Mainly through the analysis of the principle of change of circumstances and the continued implementation of exclusion rules,the reasons for its inability to effectively resolve the contract deadlock are put forward,and the existing legal provisions for solving the contract deadlock are not perfect,and the breaching party’s contract termination rules should be created in a timely manner;at the same time;Analyze the legitimacy of granting the breaching party the right to terminate the contract,and point out that the breaching party’s contract termination rule does not violate the principle of good faith,the principle of strict contract compliance,and the current legal value orientation.The fifth part is the legitimacy of giving the breaching party the right to terminate the contract.Mainly through the analysis of the principle of change of circumstances and the continued implementation of exclusion rules,the reasons for its inability to effectively resolve the contract deadlock are put forward,and the existing legal provisions for solving the contract deadlock are not perfect,and the breaching party’s contract termination rules should be created in a timely manner;at the same time;Analyze the legitimacy of granting the breaching party the right to terminate the contract,and point out that the breaching party’s contract termination rule does not violate the principle of good faith,the principle of strict contract compliance,and the current legal value orientation.The sixth part is the suggestion to improve the rules for the dissolution of the breaching party in the contract deadlock.In view of the insufficiency of the rule for the breaching party to terminate the contract,it is clear that this rule can be supplemented and improved through judicial interpretation,and suggestions for improvement are made.The occurrence of contract deadlock,the absence of malicious breach of contract by the defaulting party,and the apparent unfairness of continuing to perform can be used as the exercise conditions for regulating the breaching party to exercise the right to terminate the contract.By comparing the three methods of contract dissolution,it is most reasonable to propose judicial dissolution as the method of contract dissolution by the breaching party.更多还原