摘要
恶意串通行为并非违反公序良俗行为之子情形。在体系定位上,《民法典》第154条属于独立的合同无效制度。在适用范围上,《民法典》第154条可以对以股权等投资性权利为标的的转让、非商品房与动产的一物多卖、债务人的诈害行为损害担保人利益等案型中的恶意串通行为加以规制,具有独立的制度价值。恶意串通的主观构成聚焦于对“串通之恶意”的判断,当事人既需存在明知或应知行为可能导致损害之“观念”,又需具备积极追求或放任损害结果发生之“意思”。《民法典》第154条所称“他人合法权益”中的“他人”仅指向特定第三人。恶意串通的客观构成以“特定第三人财产利益”为中心,并以“造成实际损害”作为其必要条件。基于比例原则的考量,《民法典》第154条中的“无效”应为相对无效之法律效果,其只能由受害方主张,且仅相对该受保护的特定第三方无效。
Malicious collusion is not a phenomenon against the rule of public order and good faith.In system positioning,Article 154 of China’s Civil Code belongs to an independent system of invalid contracts.In ap-plication scope,it holds independent institutional value,as it can regulate malicious collusion in cases such as the transfer of investment rights like equity,multiple sales of non-commercial housing and chattels,and debt-ors’frauds harming the interests of guarantors.The subjective components of malicious collusion focus on the judgment of“collusive malice”,i.e.,the parties involved have both the“perception”that their conducts are likely to cause harm and the“intent”that they actively pursue or allow harmful consequences to occur.The term“other persons”in“the lawful rights and interests of other persons”mentioned in this article refers exclusively to a specific third party.The objective constitution of malicious collusion is centered on“the property interests of a specific third party”,with“causing actual damage”as an essential condition.Given the principle of proportionality,the“invalidity”stipulated in this article shall be understood as a legal effect of relative invalidity,which can only be claimed by the injured party and is only applicable to the particular third party to be protected.
作者
鲍伊帆
BAO Yi-fan(School of Law,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)
出处
《兰州大学学报（社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2024年第1期77-88,共12页
Journal of Lanzhou University（Social Sciences）
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目“互联网经济的法治保障研究”(18ZDA149)。
关键词
恶意串通
法律行为
《民法典》第154条
相对无效
malicious collusion
legal act
Article 154 of China’s Civil Code
relative invalidity
