【作者】 周航；

【导师】 冀诚；

【作者基本信息】 北京外国语大学 ， 法学， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 自《民法通则》颁布至《民法典》及《总则编解释》生效,我国重大误解制度的相关条文始终以“错误认识”这样的抽象表述作出规定,虽然最高人民法院已为重大误解的司法认定提供了诸多参考因素,但重大误解之概念仍然不够明确;司法解释中的不完全列举方式,表明可救济的错误除已有规定之外还可能有其他错误类型,且司法实践中出现的错误情形大多纷繁复杂、不以法条列出的为限;法院以往在处理涉及重大误解的案件时,一般采用归纳重大误解的若干个构成要件、并与案件事实进行涵摄的方式,而此类做法因不同裁判者提取的构成要件各有差异而标准不一,于是各地法院在认定时往往无法对相同或类似案情作出同样的判决,理论界对重大误解认定的构成要件问题亦各持己见、争议不断,进而导致司法实践中对基于重大误解撤销民事法律行为采取保守的态度。根据《总则编解释》第十九条,我国民法上在认定重大误解时无需再对以下要件予以考量:相对人是否参与、表意人是否具有过失、表意人有无较大损失等,而只需以“理性人标准”判断误解的“重大性”,即在事后假设重大误解的表意人为理性人、以认定意思表示和错误之间是否有因果关系。“理性人标准”的概念在学理上已经明朗,但在司法实务中运用到具体个案时,还须依靠裁判者结合不同案情进行自由裁量。在认定重大误解时,除提取构成要件外,辨析相关概念、确认适用范围、对意思表示错误进行类型化分析亦具有重要意义。意思表示错误的种类众多、情形纷繁复杂,须根据不同类型的错误之特点进行分别讨论、并依此对同类争议进行类案同判化处理;我国民法相关规定虽初步明确了重大误解的司法认定,而对于部分常见的争议错误如故意传达错误、签名错误、共同错误、法律错误等,仍需进行概念解释、性质确定和区别救济。我国立法上目前没有规定关于意思表示错误的分类,因此分析和梳理意思表示错误的类型,对我国学理上厘清重大误解的形态和相关规范构造、构建意思表示错误的类型系统具有积极作用,可帮助推动重大误解制度适时发挥其维护意思自治、信赖保护以及交易安全的价值。本文将通过比较研究、案例分析等研究方法尝试作出理论上的探讨,以期为我国重大误解制度在司法实践中的适用提供可行的方案。本文第一部分首先对我国民法的“重大误解”作出界定,辨析重大误解之概念并确定其适用范围。“重大误解”已成为我国本土化的特色法律概念,应将其与“错误”等量齐观;在适用范围上,重大误解制度在遗嘱行为中应注意特别适用、扩大错误和撤销权的范围,而对于婚姻等身份行为需排除其一般规则的适用,在商事领域适用应受合理限制。第二部分简述错误二元论和错误一元论之间的争议,并论证我国重大误解制度采用错误二元论立场的合理性。在承认动机错误和表达错误相区分、动机错误原则上不予以救济的前提下,借鉴比较法上的共通经验,逐一详细讨论构成重大误解的表达错误和原则上不予救济的动机错误,以及例外地适用重大误解规则的动机错误,辅之以我国具体实务案例分析。第三部分讨论的几个特殊错误类型系比较法及学理界中争议较多、且实践中常见的疑难情形:沉默的错误、签名错误、计算错误、法律错误。推断性的沉默错误、作为沉默基础的事实错误均可适用错误规则;在签名错误中需区分不同场景分别考虑解释规则和错误规则;隐藏的计算错误并非均不予救济,公开的计算错误即便成为了契约内容也应依照解释规则处理;对于法律错误问题,应区分直接的法律后果和间接的法律后果,前者可适用错误规则,后者原则上为不予救济的动机错误。第四部分通过归纳前文的论述,概括总结重大误解制度含义和适用范围,我国立法体例和司法实践经验均表明采用错误二元论的正当性,在此基础上对表达错误、动机错误以及二者中的特殊错误类型进行比较法研究和案例分析,得出不同错误类型中重大误解撤销权的适用规律和疑难错误情形下的类案同判规则。更多还原

【Abstract】 From the General Principles of the Civil Law to the Civil Code and the Interpretation of the General Provisions,the relevant provisions of China’s major misunderstanding system have always adopted the abstract provision of "misunderstanding".Although the Supreme People’s Court has provided many reference factors for the judicial determination of major misunderstandings,what constitutes a major misunderstanding remains unclear.The incomplete enumeration method in judicial interpretations shows that the remediable errors may include other types in addition to the existing stipulated objects,and most of the error that occur in judicial practice are complex and are not limited to those listed in the law.When courts dealt with cases involving major misunderstandings in the past,they generally adopted a method of summarizing several constituent elements of major misunderstandings and incorporating them into the facts of the case,but this type of practice has different standards due to the differences in the constituent elements extracted by different referees.Therefore,various courts are often unable to make the same judgment on the same or similar cases when determining.Theoretical circles also hold different opinions on the issue of what constitutes a major misunderstanding,and there are constant disputes.So in judicial practice,a conservative attitude is adopted towards the major misunderstandings annulment of civil legal actions.According to Article 19 in Interpretation of the General Provisions,when determining a major misunderstanding,it is no longer necessary to consider the participation of the counterparty,the absence of fault on the part of the expressor,and the greater loss suffered by the expressor.It only needs to be based on the "reasonable person standard":judgment is based on the "significance" of the misunderstanding,that is,post hoc assumptions are made to determine whether there is a causal relationship between the misunderstanding and the expression of meaning,and it is assumed that the person who expressed the major misunderstanding is a rational person.The concept of "reasonable person standard"has been clear in theory,but when it is applied to specific cases in judicial practice,it must rely on the discretion of judges in combination with different cases.When identifying major misunderstandings,in addition to extracting the constituent elements,it is also important to analyze relevant concepts,confirm the scope of application,and conduct a typological analysis of misrepresentation of meaning.There are many specific types of misrepresentation of meaning and the circumstances are complex,so the characteristics of different types of errors must be considered separately,and similar disputes must be handled in the same manner.Although the relevant provisions of China’s civil law have initially clarified the judicial determination of major misunderstandings,for some common disputed errors,such as intentional transmission errors,signature errors,common errors,legal errors,etc.,conceptual explanations,nature determination and differential relief are still required.China’s legislation currently does not stipulate the classification of misrepresentation of meaning.Therefore,analyzing and sorting out the types of misrepresentation of meaning has a positive effect on clarifying the form of major misunderstandings and related normative structures in China’s academic theory,and building a type system of misrepresentation of meaning.It can help promote the major misunderstanding system to give full play to its value in safeguarding autonomy of will,trust protection and transaction security in a timely manner.This paper will attempt to make a theoretical discussion through comparative research,case analysis and other research methods,in order to provide a feasible solution for the judicial practice application of China’s major misunderstanding system.The first chapter defines the "major misunderstandings" of China’s civil law,analyzing the concept of major misunderstanding and determining its scope of application."Major misunderstanding" has become a characteristic legal concept localized in China,and it should be equated with "error".In terms of scope of application,the major misunderstanding system should be particularly applicable to testamentary acts and expand the scope of errors and revocation rights.However,the application of general rules should be excluded for status acts such as marriage,and in the commercial field the application should be subject to reasonable restrictions.The second chapter briefly describes the controversy between error dualism and error monism,and generally demonstrates the rationality of adopting the error dualist position in China’s major misunderstanding system.On the premise that errors of motivation are distinguished from expression errors and that no relief is provided for motivation errors in principle,this paper draw on the common experience in comparative law to discuss in detail the errors of expression that constitute major misunderstandings,and the errors of motive that are not remediable in principle,as well as motivation errors that apply the rules of major misunderstandings exceptionally,supplemented by analysis of specific practical cases in China.The third chapter discusses several special error types which are controversial in comparative law and academic circles and are commonly difficult in practice:errors of silence,signature errors,calculation errors,and legal errors.Inferential silence errors and factual errors that are the basis for silence can be applied to error rules;in signature errors,different scenarios need to be distinguished and interpretation rules and error rules should be considered respectively;hidden calculation errors are not all exempt from relief,and open calculation errors even if it becomes the content of the contract,it should be dealt with by applying rules of interpretation;for legal errors,direct legal consequences and indirect legal consequences should be distinguishedthe former can apply the error rules,while the latter is in principle a motive error that does not grant relief.The fourth chapter generalizes the previous discussion and summarizes the meaning and scope of the major misunderstanding’s application.The judicial practice experience and legislative style of China have shown the legitimacy of adopting the error dualism,so on this basis we will analyze errors of expression,motivation errors,and special types of the two,conducting comparative law research and case analysis on special error types to obtain the application rules of the right to rescind major misunderstandings in different error types,and rules for the same judgment of similar cases in difficult error situations.更多还原