發(fā)布時間：2018-02-26 11:10

  本文關鍵詞： 委托合同 風險告知 信息披露義務 保底條款無效　出處：《吉林大學》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：隨著經濟全球化、貿易自由化以及信息網絡化的市場經濟時代逐漸確立,民間財富不斷積累,人們已經不滿足于簡單化、單項化、收益率低下的實體商戶投資,越來越多的人會選擇高收益的金融投資理財以謀求資本增長。一些投資人畏于金融理財活動的高風險性,選擇委任商業(yè)銀行為主的投資機構代為理財,自此,委托理財活動應運而生。然而,約定保底條款成為常態(tài)、受托人惡意虧損等種種問題層出不窮,致使委托理財合同不能正常地發(fā)揮積極的市場效應。由此引發(fā)的委托理財合同糾紛案件數量不斷上漲,成為審判中的一類疑難復雜案件。在審判實踐中各地法院的裁判案例對于委托理財合同糾紛問題的解決雖已提供了一些經驗,但立法的空缺導致裁判結果無法統一的亂象,急需學者和司法工作者加快補足這一空缺。本文針對這一現狀,展開研究工作,采用實證研究的方法對委托理財合同糾紛的裁判情況進行了統一的歸納、整理、分析,對委托理財的重點問題做一專業(yè)的判斷,文章主要分為四個部分:第一部分:我國委托理財糾紛現狀概要。該部分從委托理財合同糾紛案件數據統計出發(fā),概括了委托理財合同糾紛在司法審判中表現出來的特點。并總結性地說明了相關問題的爭議焦點主要包括:1、委托理財合同的合同定性問題;2、受托人風險告知義務和信息披露義務應否明確為私法規(guī)范中的義務的問題;3、關于委托理財合同中保底條款效力認定的問題。第二部分:委托理財合同的法律屬性之爭。委托理財合同經常與借款合同發(fā)生混同,在這一部分中,通過相關審判案件的例證,不僅說明了混同現象的種類,也細致地分析了委托理財合同與借款合同發(fā)生混同的原因。并且提出了關鍵性的問題,即委托理財合同的法律屬性問題。需要注意的是,本文并未吸納信托說的相關觀點,直接認定委托理財合同是一種特殊的委托合同。第三部分:受托人的風險告知義務與信息披露義務邊界。因立法空缺導致金融消費者的各項權益經常得不到及時、有效的保護,該部份就受托人的兩項重大義務(風險告知義務、信息披露義務)展開討論,以期通過立法明確受托人相關義務,從而保障金融消費者的財產權益。該處沿用全文實證研究的方法,由風險告知義務與信息披露義務得不到善良履行而導致侵害金融消費者權益的現狀入手,明確提出了將受托人的風險告知義務和信息披露義務加入立法的建議。第四部分:保底合同條款的效力認定。在委托理財合同糾紛中,保底條款效力認定問題一直是司法審判中爭議最大的問題,因此,本文最終就這一問題進行了重點討論。該部分的特點是層級化的討論,當然也一并采用了實證研究的方法。首先,通過案例引出保底條款的定義和發(fā)生率問題。然后,討論了關于保底條款效力認定的一些不同觀點及相應的原因。而后,表明了本文支持保底條款無效且不影響其他合同條款效力的觀點,并詳細說明了原因。最后,完整地表述了保底條款認定無效后責任承擔的問題。
[Abstract]:With the economic globalization, trade liberalization and information network era of market economy gradually established, private wealth accumulation, people are not satisfied with a simple, single, low rate of return on the investment of business entities, more and more people will choose high income financial investment for capital growth. High risk investors fear of financial activities, the choice of investment institutions appointed commercial banks for financing, trust financing activities emerged. Since then, however, the agreed terms of the minimum guarantee has become the norm, the trustee and other malicious losses emerge in an endless stream, resulting in the trustmanagement contract not normal to play a positive market effect. The number of commissioned financing contract dispute cases arising from the rising, become a kind of difficult and complicated cases in the trial. In judicial practice all over the court referee case of commissioned management To solve the problem of property contract dispute has provided some experience, but the legislation vacancy causes judge the results can not be unified chaos, scholars and judicial workers need to speed up the make up for the vacancy. In this situation, the research work, using the methods of empirical research on the referee commissioned financing contract dispute a unified induction, sorting, analysis, do a professional judgment on the key problems of trust management, the article is divided into four parts: the first part: Chinas trustmanagement status summary. This part starts from the statistics of commissioned financing contract dispute case data, summarizes the characteristics of entrust financial contract dispute reflected in judicial adjudication and. Summary description of the focus of controversy related issues including: 1, the contract nature of entrust financial contract; 2, fiduciary risk disclosure and information disclosure obligations Not clear for private law obligation in question; 3, on the trustmanagement contract validity ofminimum guarantee clause identification problems. The second part: the legal attribute for entrusted financial contract. Entrusted financial contract and loan contract occurred often confused. In this part, through the relevant trial examples not only illustrate the types confusion, also carefully analyze the reasons of entrust financial contract and loan contract occurred mix. And put forward the key problem, namely legal attribute of entrust financial contract. Note that this paper does not absorb related perspective trust, direct determination of commissioned financing contract is a special contract third part: risk trustee duty and the obligation of information disclosure boundary. Because the legislative vacancy leads to the rights and interests of financial consumers are often not timely, effective protection of the part The two major duty of the trustee (risk disclosure obligation, the obligation of information disclosure) to discuss, in order to legislate the trustee obligations, in order to protect the property rights and interests of financial consumers. The use of empirical research methods of the thesis, the status of risk disclosure obligations and information disclosure obligations are not good performance due to infringement the financial interests of consumers with, puts forward the risk of trustee's obligation and the obligation of information disclosure to legislative proposals. The fourth part: the validity of insurance contract terms. In the trust management contract disputes, the guarantee clause of cognizance of effectiveness has been controversial in judicial trial the biggest problem, therefore, this article will end this a problem is discussed. The characteristics of the part of the discussion is in order, of course also adopts the empirical research method. First of all, through the case base In terms of the definition and the incidence of problems. Then, discussed about the validity of the guarantee clause of some different views and corresponding reasons. Then, this paper shows that the support guarantee clause is invalid and does not affect the validity of the other terms of the contract, and a detailed description of the reason. Finally, complete representation of the minimum guarantee clause invalid responsibility the problem.

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 曲一帆;金融消費者保護法律制度比較研究[D];中國政法大學;2011年

2 徐子良;經濟法司法實施之應用研究[D];華東政法大學;2010年

相關碩士學位論文 前5條

1 王亞楠;保底型委托理財產品法律問題研究[D];大連海事大學;2015年

2 張雪微;論委托理財合同中的保底條款[D];黑龍江大學;2015年

3 劉媛媛;論委托理財合同的保底條款[D];廣西大學;2014年

4 沈潔;委托理財合同法律問題研究[D];南昌大學;2013年

5 馮慧君;委托理財合同之性質及風險防范研究[D];武漢理工大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1537767