继续性合同的解除:违约方解除抑或重大事由解除  

Long-term Contract:Termination Based on a Breaching Party’s Right to Termination or on a Compelling Reason

作　　者：韩世远[1] Han Shiyuan

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院

出　　处：《中外法学》2020年第1期104-127,共24页Peking University Law Journal

基　　金：国家社科基金重点项目“合同法立法相关问题研究”(项目编号:17AFX020)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：民法典合同编新规定的"违约方解除权"引发关注,滋生争议。引发该问题的"新宇公司诉冯玉梅案"本身仍有诸多基本问题,需要澄清。现行法关于继续性合同的解除规则供给不足,以至于在合同僵局场合法院被迫从拟制当事人的意思出发解除合同、打破僵局。立法的问题应通过立法解决。合同僵局问题并非仅在中国出现,在德、日两国,围绕继续性合同的解除(终止),立法及判例均有较为成熟的经验积累,值得我国立法借鉴。无视此类比较法经验,独创"违约方解除权"规则,并不可行。目前草案中的违约方解除权规则无法破解合同僵局,必须修正。建议借鉴《德国民法典》第314条,规定当事人可基于重大事由解除继续性合同。民法典就继续性合同的特别解除存在法律漏洞,则应类推适用保管合同的"特别事由"解除,或者类推适用婚姻关系"感情确已破裂"规则,由当事人请求法院解除。A new provision in the draft of China’s Civil Code,namely Article 353(3)on the "breaching partys right to termination" ,has attracted attention and become very controversial issue.The case raising the issue, "Xinyu Co.vs.Feng Yumei" ,has left a lot of misunderstandings demanding clarification.The existing Chinese law supplies inadequate rules on termination of long-term contracts.And in order to break the deadlocks of contract,judges have been obliged to construct an agreement of the parties to terminate the contract by implication.However,insufficiency in law should be improved by legislation.Since such an issue of deadlock of contract is not an issue only existing in China,comparative legal studies may provide help.Based on a comparative study of both German and Japanese laws on termination of long-term contract,the author suggests the Chinese legislature to follow the German BGB§314,which is on termination,for a compelling reason,of contracts for the performance of a continuing obligation.The author has also introduced two German cases,in order to show how to apply the rule on termination of long-term contract for a compelling reason.

关 键 词：继续性合同 重大事由 信赖关系破坏 合同解除 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学]