重大误解解释论纲  

A Brief Commentary on the Rule of Significant Misconception(Mistake)

作　　者：韩世远[1] 

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《中外法学》2017年第3期667-684,共18页Peking University Law Journal

基　　金：2014年度国家社会科学基金重大项目:"中国民法重述;民法典编纂与社会主义市场经济法律制度的完善"(142DC018)的阶段性研究成果之一

摘　　要：民法总则》第147条虽具有完全性法条的外形,因"重大误解"一词本身为不确定概念,故含有授权补充的漏洞。适用该法条,应将评价因素具体化。法律行为已成立乃是当然的前提,误解的重大性只是必要但不充分的条件,此外,还应补充相对人对于误解的参与以及消极要件。通过类比第三人欺诈场合的立法价值判断,并参考比较法,上述要点理应吸收进入第147条的解释论。重大误解固然可以发生撤销权,有些场合变更合同更符合实际需要。考虑相对人对于误解方误解的参与因素,损害赔偿一般不是误解方赔偿相对方,而是相对方赔偿误解方;此种赔偿是对于信赖利益的赔偿。关于重大误解的解释论,应实现从二元论向一元论、从意思主义向表示主义的理论转型。Even though Article 147 of the new General Provisions of Civil Law of PRC 2017 is appar ently a complete legal norm, while ＂significant misconception＂ is an indefinite concept, it has a gap to be filled by judges. In order to apply this article, it is necessary to materialize relevant factors of evaluation. As pre conditions for a significant misconception, there should be a juristic act （contract） ; the misconception should be a significant one; the other party has contributed or involved in the misconception and the mistaken party has not negative issues. Both the requirement on the other party and that on the mis- taken party here cannot be read out from the Article 147, they are supplemented by analogy of Article 149 （a third party＇s fraud） and inspiration of comparative law （PICC Article 3.2.2 etc）. As to the legal effects of significant misconception, the Article 147 provides only revocation of the juristic act. However, in some cases of mistake, modification of the juristic act may still be necessary. While the requirement of the other party＇s involvement in the misconception has been supplemented, damages for culpa in contra hendo may be for the fault other party to compensate the mistaken party for his reliance interest. Now it is time hor the theory on mistake in China to transform from a dualism theory to a monism theory, and from a will theory to an expression theory.

关 键 词：重大误解 错误 表示主义 法律错误 共同错误 

分 类 号：D923.1[政治法律—民商法学]