本文關(guān)鍵詞：違約金過高調(diào)整的司法裁判研究　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 違約金 調(diào)整 司法裁判

【摘要】：違約金的司法裁判調(diào)整無論在法學(xué)理論界還是司法實踐的領(lǐng)域都是備受關(guān)注的重要問題,違約金制度作為民商事交易過程中最常見的違約權(quán)利救濟(jì)途徑,對于擔(dān)保合同的正常履行和防范合同履行過重中的風(fēng)險具有舉足輕重的作用和意義。但違約金作為私法領(lǐng)域中,締約主體針對合同自由原則充分適用的產(chǎn)物,如不使用公權(quán)力予以適當(dāng)?shù)母深A(yù),難免會發(fā)生違約行為發(fā)生后當(dāng)事人各方主體權(quán)力義務(wù)不均衡顯失公平的局面,導(dǎo)致契約自由損害了契約正義的原則,由此說來對違約金調(diào)整制度進(jìn)行設(shè)計并合理架構(gòu)就顯得尤為必要。我國目前的違約金調(diào)整制度規(guī)定的內(nèi)容比較籠統(tǒng),在司法裁判的適用過程中對法官自由裁量權(quán)的運用提出了極高的要求,因此在對裁判數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析時,發(fā)現(xiàn)裁判差異化的情況較為普遍的存在。從我國司法裁判的公開數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行搜集分析作為切入點,能夠得出目前審判實踐中關(guān)于舉證責(zé)任分配、法官依職權(quán)調(diào)整違約金、關(guān)于損失應(yīng)當(dāng)如何認(rèn)定等方面均存在諸多的問題,這些問題的存在造成了裁判結(jié)果出現(xiàn)了極大的差異化。雖然我國《合同法》的司法解釋中對于違約金的調(diào)整規(guī)則進(jìn)行了一定的論述,但該規(guī)定尚存在很多問題沒有明確,以至于出現(xiàn)在司法裁判中對于法律規(guī)定的適用尺度不一致。本文先行對違約金調(diào)整的理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了分析和探究,研究了違約金調(diào)整制度的理論基礎(chǔ),來尋找違約金調(diào)整制度設(shè)立的正當(dāng)性和必要性,確認(rèn)這是由于違約金自身的性質(zhì)和特點所決定的,需要通過對合同自由予以修正以實現(xiàn)合同正義,并對當(dāng)事人之間的利益進(jìn)行平衡以彰顯交易公平。而后再進(jìn)一步的分析我國違約金調(diào)整制度的規(guī)則和特點,對我國法律規(guī)定中違約金的功能進(jìn)行探討、性質(zhì)進(jìn)行分析,來推導(dǎo)出違約金調(diào)整制度應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮依據(jù)的司法原則和法官行使自由裁量權(quán)時應(yīng)當(dāng)把控的要素。結(jié)合大量的司法裁判案例數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析,找到審判實務(wù)中時常出現(xiàn)的問題、矛盾,并分析這寫矛盾背后的成因,來確認(rèn)違約金調(diào)整制度應(yīng)當(dāng)樹立懲罰性和補償性兩種性質(zhì)予以區(qū)別調(diào)整,建議對違約金調(diào)整制度的裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、舉證責(zé)任分配等內(nèi)容予以合理的完善。筆者認(rèn)為,在充分的保障合同自由、保證合同正義的前提條件下,應(yīng)當(dāng)有節(jié)制并合理有序的對違約金保留司法干預(yù)的權(quán)利,經(jīng)過了對司法裁判案例進(jìn)行分析研究,查找到裁判差異化這一亂象出現(xiàn)的理論源頭,提出違約金調(diào)整制度理論研究的必要性,建議從法學(xué)研究理論基礎(chǔ)對違約金調(diào)整制度予以深化,并從司法裁判的進(jìn)一步規(guī)范化的各個維度予以完善,對制度的適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行統(tǒng)一,以確保我國合同履行過程中各方的利益均將得以保護(hù)。
[Abstract]:The adjustment of judicial judgment of liquidated damages is an important issue of great concern both in the field of legal theory and judicial practice. The system of liquidated damages is the most common way to remedy the right of breach of contract in the process of civil and commercial transactions. It plays an important role and significance in the normal performance of the guarantee contract and the prevention of the risk in the excessive performance of the contract. However, the liquidated damages are the product of the full application of the principle of freedom of contract in the field of private law. If the public power is not used to intervene properly, it will inevitably occur after the breach of contract, the parties' rights and obligations of the parties will be unbalanced and unfair, resulting in the freedom of contract to damage the principle of contractual justice. Therefore, it is particularly necessary to design and reasonably structure the adjustment system of liquidated damages. The contents of the current regulation system of liquidated damages in our country are quite general. In the process of application of the judicial decision, the application of the discretion of the judge put forward a very high demand, so in the analysis of the adjudication data. From the public data of judicial decision collection and analysis as a starting point, we can get the distribution of burden of proof in the current trial practice. The judge adjusts the breach penalty according to the function, and there are many problems about how to determine the loss and so on. The existence of these problems has resulted in great differences in the results of adjudication, although the adjustment rules of liquidated damages have been discussed in the judicial interpretation of contract Law of China. However, there are still many problems not clear, so that appear in the judicial adjudication of the applicable standards of the legal provisions are inconsistent. This paper first of all analyzes and explores the theoretical basis of the adjustment of liquidated damages. This paper studies the theoretical basis of the adjustment system of liquidated damages to find out the legitimacy and necessity of the establishment of the adjustment system of liquidated damages and confirms that it is determined by the nature and characteristics of the liquidated damages themselves. Need to amend the freedom of contract to achieve contract justice, and the interests of the parties to balance to highlight the fairness of the transaction. Then further analysis of the rules and characteristics of the system of adjustment of liquidated damages. This paper probes into the function and nature of the penalty for breach of contract in the legal provisions of our country. To deduce the adjustment system of liquidated damages should consider the basis of the judicial principles and judges exercise discretion should control the elements. Combined with a large number of judicial adjudication case data analysis. Find out the problems and contradictions that often appear in the trial practice, and analyze the causes behind the contradictions, to confirm that the adjustment system of liquidated damages should establish punitive and compensatory nature to be differentiated and adjusted. It is suggested that the judgment standard of the adjustment system of liquidated damages and the distribution of the burden of proof should be reasonably perfected. The author believes that under the premise of full protection of freedom of contract and guarantee of contract justice. We should reserve the right of judicial intervention to the penalty of breach of contract in a reasonable and orderly manner. Through the analysis and study of the cases of judicial judgment, we can find the theoretical source of the phenomenon of the judicial differentiation. This paper puts forward the necessity of theoretical research on the adjustment system of liquidated damages, and suggests that the adjustment system of liquidated damages should be deepened from the theoretical basis of legal research, and be perfected from the various dimensions of further standardization of judicial adjudication. This paper unifies the applicable standards of the system to ensure that the interests of all parties will be protected in the course of the performance of the contract in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王洪亮;;違約金酌減規(guī)則論[J];法學(xué)家;2015年03期

2 李東琦;;論懲罰性違約金的調(diào)整[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年06期

3 雷繼平;;違約金司法調(diào)整的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和相關(guān)因素[J];法律適用;2009年11期

4 王闖;;當(dāng)前人民法院審理商事合同案件適用法律若干問題[J];法律適用;2009年09期

5 周海嶺;;論我國違約金制度的完善[J];華北水利水電學(xué)院學(xué)報(社科版);2009年04期

6 韓世遠(yuǎn);;違約金的理論爭議與實踐問題[J];北京仲裁;2009年01期

7 靳學(xué)軍;李穎;;違約金調(diào)整的司法難題及解決[J];人民司法;2008年19期

8 雷裕春;;違約金的比較法研究[J];今日南國(理論創(chuàng)新版);2008年08期

9 舒忠良;;關(guān)于違約金法律適用問題的研究[J];云南警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年01期

10 帥錦鈴;;構(gòu)建我國違約金制度的建議[J];湖北行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年S2期

，

本文編號：1369484