本文選題：無效合同 + 訴訟時(shí)效��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：合同無效所涉訴訟時(shí)效問題是司法實(shí)踐中較為常見的問題。但在《民法通則》、《合同法》兩部法律,以及最高人民法院最新出臺(tái)的有關(guān)民訴問題的規(guī)定中,都沒有對(duì)無效合同的確認(rèn)、確認(rèn)后產(chǎn)生的相關(guān)請(qǐng)求權(quán)是否應(yīng)該適用訴訟時(shí)效制度作出規(guī)定。并且無論是在理論界還是法律實(shí)務(wù)界對(duì)此問題爭議不斷,難以形成統(tǒng)一的觀點(diǎn)。正是因?yàn)槲覈鄙訇P(guān)于無效合同的訴訟時(shí)效問題的統(tǒng)一規(guī)定,導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中出現(xiàn)同案不同判的尷尬情況。設(shè)立合同無效制度其最根本目的就是為了維護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益、保護(hù)國家和社會(huì)的公共利益,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)穩(wěn)定社會(huì)秩序,維護(hù)交易安全。如果不能科學(xué)、合理的解決好這類問題,勢(shì)必會(huì)影響司法審判的統(tǒng)一性、權(quán)威性,亦有礙于國家法律制度的完善。因此,為了更好地保護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益,兼顧合同法自由、公平和效率的價(jià)值追求,對(duì)這一問題的分析探究是必要而迫切的。本文第一部分試從司法實(shí)踐的真實(shí)案例入手,通過對(duì)比兩個(gè)無效合同案例的判決結(jié)果,一個(gè)認(rèn)定應(yīng)適用訴訟時(shí)效;一個(gè)認(rèn)為一旦時(shí)效期間經(jīng)過,當(dāng)事人的訴訟請(qǐng)求法院將不予支持,進(jìn)而引出無效合同對(duì)訴訟時(shí)效制度是否適用的問題。文章第二部分分析確認(rèn)合同無效是否應(yīng)適用訴訟時(shí)效制度這一問題,通過對(duì)肯定說、否定說、以及折中說三種學(xué)說觀點(diǎn)的闡述、評(píng)析進(jìn)而論證確認(rèn)合同無效不應(yīng)適用訴訟時(shí)效制度。其原因主要從訴訟時(shí)效的客體、訴的類型、法的價(jià)值幾個(gè)角度進(jìn)行分析。第三部分則是針對(duì)合同無效被確認(rèn)后產(chǎn)生的財(cái)產(chǎn)返還請(qǐng)求權(quán)的訴訟時(shí)效問題。對(duì)于這個(gè)問題,財(cái)產(chǎn)應(yīng)區(qū)分有體物和無體物的,然后通過登記制度予以分類適用。首先,無體物返還請(qǐng)求權(quán)在性質(zhì)上屬于不當(dāng)?shù)美?qǐng)求權(quán),適用訴訟時(shí)效制度。其次,有體物方面,在登記所有權(quán)場(chǎng)合由于相對(duì)人對(duì)登記制度的公信公示效力的信賴,已登記的有體物返還請(qǐng)求權(quán)不適用訴訟時(shí)效制度較為合理;在未登記所有物返還請(qǐng)求權(quán)的場(chǎng)合,則應(yīng)適用訴訟時(shí)效制度,這樣既能更好的保護(hù)當(dāng)事人的利益又能維護(hù)法的價(jià)值。再者,關(guān)于財(cái)產(chǎn)返還請(qǐng)求權(quán)適用訴訟時(shí)效后,時(shí)效期間的起算點(diǎn)問題,學(xué)界存在合同訂立之日起算說、給付財(cái)產(chǎn)之日起算說等爭議學(xué)說。筆者認(rèn)為其適用訴訟時(shí)效的起算點(diǎn)應(yīng)統(tǒng)一由司法機(jī)關(guān)確認(rèn)合同無效之日起計(jì)算更為合理。文章的第四部分,則針對(duì)無效合同確認(rèn)后所產(chǎn)生的損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)的訴訟時(shí)效問題進(jìn)行分析。損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)在性質(zhì)上屬于債權(quán),適用訴訟時(shí)效制度。而在損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)適用訴訟時(shí)效制度后其時(shí)效期間的起算點(diǎn)應(yīng)由司法機(jī)關(guān)確認(rèn)合同無效之日起計(jì)算為準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:The limitation of action involved in invalidation of contract is a common problem in judicial practice. However, in the "General principles of Civil Law", the "contract Law" and the latest provisions of the Supreme people's Court concerning the issue of civil litigation, there is no confirmation of invalid contracts. Whether the relevant right of claim after confirmation should be regulated by the statute of limitations system. And it is difficult to form a unified point of view because of the constant controversy on this issue in both theoretical and legal circles. It is precisely because our country lacks the unified stipulation about the limitation of action of invalid contract, cause the awkward situation of different judgment of the same case in the judicial practice. The fundamental purpose of setting up the system of invalid contract is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, protect the public interests of the state and society, thus realize the stability of social order and safeguard the security of transactions. If this kind of problem can not be solved scientifically, it will inevitably affect the unity and authority of judicial trial, and also hinder the perfection of national legal system. Therefore, in order to better protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and to give consideration to the value pursuit of freedom, fairness and efficiency of contract law, it is necessary and urgent to analyze and explore this issue. The first part of this article tries to start with the real cases in judicial practice, by comparing the judgment results of two invalid contract cases, one finds that the statute of limitations should be applied; the other thinks that once the limitation period has passed, The litigant's request will not be supported by the court, which leads to the question of whether the invalid contract is applicable to the statute of limitations system. The second part of the article analyzes whether the system of limitation of action should be applied to confirm the invalidity of a contract. The analysis further demonstrates that the system of limitation of action should not be applied to confirm the invalidity of the contract. The reasons are mainly analyzed from the object of limitation, the type of action and the value of law. The third part is about the limitation of the property restitution claim after the invalidity of the contract is confirmed. In this case, property should distinguish between physical and non-physical, and then be classified and applied through the registration system. First of all, the claim right of return of incorporeal objects belongs to the right of unjust enrichment in nature, and the system of limitation of action is applied. Secondly, on the aspect of body matter, due to the trust of the relative party to the public credit of the registration system, it is more reasonable that the registered claim right to return the body property is not applicable to the limitation of action system. In the case where the right of return of property is not registered, the system of limitation of action should be applied, which can better protect the interests of the parties and maintain the value of the law. Furthermore, as to the issue of the starting point of the limitation period after the application of the statute of limitations to the claim for the return of property, there are some controversial theories in academic circles, such as from the date of the conclusion of the contract and from the date of payment of the property. The author thinks that it is more reasonable to calculate the starting point of the limitation of action from the day when the judicial organ confirms the invalidity of the contract. In the fourth part, the author analyzes the limitation of damages caused by the confirmation of invalid contract. The right of claim for damages belongs to creditor's rights in nature, and the system of limitation of action is applied. The starting point of the limitation period after the application of the limitation system in the claim for damages shall be calculated from the date of the confirmation of invalidity of the contract by the judicial organ.
【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】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 余冬愛;;無效合同訴訟時(shí)效問題探析[J];政治與法律;2009年01期

2 楊少南;論無效合同與訴訟時(shí)效的適用[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2005年02期

3 柳經(jīng)緯;關(guān)于時(shí)效制度的若干理論問題[J];比較法研究;2004年05期

4 黃愛學(xué);合同無效適用時(shí)效問題探析[J];西北民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年02期

5 劉貴祥;訴訟時(shí)效若干理論與實(shí)務(wù)問題研究[J];法律適用;2004年02期

6 李叢;淺論合同的無效與時(shí)效體系的完善[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年12期

7 馬新彥;論信賴規(guī)則的邏輯結(jié)構(gòu)[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2003年04期

8 王利明;關(guān)于無效合同確認(rèn)的若干問題[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2002年05期

9 龐小菊;無效合同的訴訟時(shí)效問題芻議[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

10 張馳;論訴訟時(shí)效客體[J];法學(xué);2001年03期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 尹明;;確認(rèn)合同無效有無時(shí)間限制[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 高永周;論民事行為無效后果的處置與訴訟時(shí)效[D];四川大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：1900661