论诚实信用原则的修正功能

【作者】 洪兵；

【导师】 王洪；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 自二十世纪《瑞士民法典》颁布以来，诚实信用原则作为民法的一项重要基本原则，在民法中得到普遍应用。大陆法系国家不仅在理论上对诚实信用原则进行了深入系统的理论研究，而且在实务中运用诚实信用原则来规范、修正合同、解释、补充法律，甚至运用诚实信用原则对制度进行修正。我国学界也对诚实信用原则产生了浓厚的研究兴趣，并取得了一些重要的研究成果。但是，我们仍然没有对诚实信用原则的源流、功能，在民法中的类型和具体适用等进行充分的归纳。所以，我们仍然需要对诚实信用原则进行更深入的研究和探讨。笔者以诚实信用原则的修正功能为题，以期对诚实信用原则的修正功能有更深入的研究。本文除引言、结语外，共有四部分，约有3万余字。第一部分主要介绍诚实信用原则修正功能的基础理论，笔者主要对诚实信用原则的本质和功能进行初步的介绍和研究。笔者认为，诚实信用原则的本质应从三个层次上来理解，第一，从应然层次上来讲，诚实信用原则是自然法的体现，是对实在法的一种正义评价标准；第二，从应然层次上讲，诚实信用原则是实在法中的衡平法，是一种强制法律规范；第三，从司法能动方面来讲，诚实信用原则的本质是赋予法官自由裁量权。对于诚实信用原则的功能，笔者认为，主要有行为准则功能，解释、补充或评价法律行为的功能，解释、补充法律的功能，而学界对于诚实信用原则修正功能的争论，其核心在于法律的稳定性与个案正义的价值较量，其涉及到立法与司法的关系问题。第二部分主要对大陆法系国家立法—司法关系的演变进行梳理。立法与司法的关系在大陆法系国家一直是一个讨论比较热烈的问题。在十九世纪，大陆法系国家的立法—司法关系主要继承了罗马法时期的严格法，在这一时期，大陆法系的法官权力被严格限制在仅仅是在“宣示法律”，是“法律的喉舌”。法官的造法功能和推动法律发展的职能被严厉的禁止。在二十世纪，大陆法系国家由于政治、经济和意识形态上的变化导致了大陆法系国家法官开始拥有较大的自由裁量权，甚至具有造法的权力。但是，这一时期，法官仍然仅仅是立法的一个不可或缺的助手而已。笔者认为，随着两大法系的逐渐的交流和融合，以及社会经济、政治的发展，大陆法系的法官必然拥有造法的权力。第三部分主要介绍德国法上的诚实信用原则的修正功能，德国最高法院通过大量的判例确立了诚实信用原则对方式欠缺效力的修正，并提出了判断公式，即“依诚实信用原则，方式无效将导致不仅是严苛，而且是简直难以承受的结果”。但是德国学界认为德国最高法院见解是根本不具有任何论证价值的，因此，德国学界对德国最高法院的判例进行归纳并予以类型化，并提出了适用诚实信用原则修正功能的检验要素。德国学者将诚实信用原则对方式欠缺法律行为效力的修正分为三类：(1)当事人一方恶意欺诈、(2)当事人一方过失造成方式欠缺、(3)双方当事人均知方式欠缺。对于适用诚实信用原则修正功能的检验要素，德国学者Canaris提出了如下检验要素：第一、善意信赖合同有效，第二、产生信赖的一方当事人已为处分或信赖性投入，第三、必须可归责于信赖人的相对人，第四、方式目的被规避的程度，第五、其他请求权不能得到令人满意的结果，第六、其他要素。第四部分主要构建我国法上诚实信用原则修正功能制度。笔者主要从我国社会的发展、法律的局限性、法律的稳定性与法律的灵活性的关系、立法与司法的目的、诚实信用原则的本质等方面来说明我国有必要肯定诚实信用原则的修正功能。另外，笔者也提出了我国法上诚实信用原则修正功能适用的检验要素、制度保障和合理限度。对于诚实信用原则修正功能的检验要素，笔者认为，第一、信赖人善意且无过失，第二、信赖人的相对人在主观上具有恶意，第三、信赖人遭受重大损失，第四、法律所规定的请求权基础对信赖人所遭受的损失无法提供有效的救济。对于适用的制度保障，笔者认为，首先，诚实信用原则修正功能的适用权应当由最高人民法院享有；其次，法官审判的独立性必须受到保障；再次，法官只要是根据内心的善意衡平观念审判，法官就不应当受到审判责任的追究。对于适用的合理限度，笔者认为，第一，合议庭成员法官在适用诚实信用原则判决案件时，必须取得一致意见；第二，在法律解释的方法上，法官必须穷尽所有解释方法不能有效的保护当事人的利益时才能适用诚实信用原则的修正功能。第三，建立判决书向社会公开的制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the promulgation of Swiss Code Civil in the 20th century, as an important basic principle of civil law, good faith has been applied to civil law universally. The continental law system countries have not only theoretically conducted the deeply systematical research good faith, but also put the good faith into practice to standardize and revise the contract; to explain and supplement law; even to carry on the revision to the law system. Our country academic world has also been greatly interested in the good faith, and has obtained some important research results. However, we have not made fully induction on the good faith’s sources, functions, even the types and specific applications in the civil law. We still need to conduct more thorough research and probation to good faith. The author chooses the revision function of the good faith as the topic, expecting to carry on more thorough research on the revision function of the good faithThis article, except the introduction, the conclusion, consists of four parts, approximately 30,000 characters altogether.The first part mainly introduces basic theories of the good faith’s revision function, especially the preliminary introduction and research on the essence and function of the good faith. The author believes that the good faith’s essence should come up the understanding from three levels: first, from the "to be" level, the good faith is the embodiment of natural law; is judicial evaluating criteria of the solid law; Second, from the "should be" level, the good faith is the equity of solid law; is one kind of obligatory law standard; Third, from the judicial initiative, the good faith’s essence is to entrust judge with free jurisdiction. With regard to the good faith’s function, as the author believes, it is mainly composed of the function of behavior criterion, the function of explaining, supplementing or appraising legal act, and the function of supplementing law, but in the academic world, the argument on the revision function of the good faith lies in the balance between the legal stability and the case just value, involved in the relational question between legislation and judicature. The second part mainly combs the evolution of the continental law system countries’ legislation-judicature relation. Discussion about the relation of legislation-judicature, in the continental law system countries, is always quite a warm question. In the 19th century, the continental law system countries’ legislation-judicature relations mainly inherited the strict laws in Roman times. In this period, the judge’s authority, in continental law system countries, was strictly limited in merely "declare the law", and was "the mouthpiece of the law". Judge’s function of creating law and developing the law was severely prohibited. In 20th century, due to political reasons, economical effects and ideological change, judges, in continental law system countries, started to own the authority of free jurisdiction, even the power of creating the law. But, during this period, judge still was legislation’s indispensable assistant. The author believes that, along with two big legal system gradual exchanges and fusion, as well as the development of social economy and politics, continental law system countries’ judges must inevitably own the authority to establish the law.The third part mainly introduces the good faith’s revision function in the German law. The German Supreme Court establishes the good faith through the massive legal precedents to revise lack of way’ effectiveness, and proposes the judgment formula. But the German academic world thinks the German Supreme Court’s opinion does not simply have any proof value, therefore the German academic world induces the German Supreme Court’s legal precedents and classifies them, and proposes essential testing factors for applying the honest credit principle’s revision function.The fourth part mainly focuses on how to construct the system of revision function in our country. The author mainly proves that it is essential to establish good faith’s revision function in many aspects, such as, our country’s social development, legal limitation, relation between legal stability and legal flexibility, goals of legislation and judicature, essences of good faith and so on. Moreover, the author also proposed the institutional safeguard and reasonable limit on applying good faith. Regarding good faith’s revision function examination essential factor, the author believed that, first, trusts the human good intentions also does not have the error, second, trusts the human the relative person subjectively to have the evil intention, third, trusts the human to suffer the heavy loss, fouth, the law stipulated the request power foundation to trusts the loss which the human suffers to be unable to provide the effective relief. In the institutional safeguard, the author believes that, first, the good faith’s revision function power must be enjoyed by the Supreme People’s Court; second, judge’s trial independence must be guaranteed; third, so long as judge makes judgment according to the innermost feelings of good-intentioned equity, judge must take no trial responsibility. In the suitable limit, author believes that, first, collegial bench, when it applies the good faith to settling a lawsuit, must obtain the consensus; second, in the way of legal explanation, the judge may apply good faith’s revision function unless he exhausts all explanatory methods but not to protect litigant’s benefits effectively. Third, we must establish the system in which the judgment of the court should be open to the public.更多还原