真意保留的解释论  

An Interpretation of Mental Reservation in China

作　　者：叶雅冰 YE Yabing(Law School,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院,北京100084

出　　处：《西南政法大学学报》2023年第6期47-62,共16页Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“民法典中动产与权利担保体系研究”(19BFX118)。

摘　　要：基于表示主义的立场,真意保留不宜作为意思表示瑕疵进入《民法典》,但这不意味着真意保留制度丧失独立性。我国《民法典》中的真意保留规则不能从既有制度推得:第142条的意思表示解释制度未采取纯粹的客观解释一元论立场,未区分相对人是否知情,解释结果主要取决于法官的自由裁量,未必与真意保留规则一致;第147条的重大误解制度无法适用于故意的真意保留;第143条对有效法律行为构成要件的规定仅构成正面概括式引导规范,无法经反面解释推论真意保留无效。基于对域外理论的本土化反思与我国司法实践中的案例分析,《民法典》中的真意保留规则应作如下解释:隐蔽型真意保留因不构成意思表示瑕疵而有效;双方公开型真意保留因构成双方虚假表示而无效;单方公开型真意保留因未达成合意而无效。Incorporating mental reservation into the Chinese Civil Code as a declaration defect from the perspective of expressionism is inappropriate.However,this does not imply the loss of independence due to mental reservation.The rule of mental reservation in The Chinese Civil Code cannot be derived from the existing legal framework:Article 142 does not adhere to a purely objective interpretation stance and does not distinguish whether the counterparty is informed or not.The interpretation result largely depends on the judge's discretion,which may not align with the mental reservation rule.Article 147,concerning material misunderstanding,cannot be applied to intentional mental reservation.Article 143 does not provide grounds for inferring the invalidity of mental reservation through negative interpretation,as it constitutes only a positive and general guideline.Drawing on localized interpretations of foreign theories and case analyses in Chinese judicial practices,this paper proposes the following interpretations for the rule of mental reservation in the Chinese Civil Code:covert mental reservation is valid as it does not constitute a declaration defect;mutual overt mental reservation is invalid due to mutual false representation;unilateral overt mental reservation is invalid for lack of agreement.

关 键 词：真意保留 意思表示瑕疵 意思表示解释 虚假表示 重大误解 

分 类 号：DF51[政治法律—民商法学]