通谋虚伪行为的对抗规则  

Adversarial Rules for Collusion in Hypocrisy

作　　者：黄阿晴 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学法律学院,上海

出　　处：《争议解决》2024年第3期136-142,共7页Dispute Settlement

摘　　要：自《民法总则》第146条未规定通谋虚伪行为无效不得对抗善意第三人起,学术界就我国通谋虚伪行为效力定性争论不休。而我国《民法典》第146条仍沿袭以上规定、且第763条对虚构应收帐款进行规定则引发学者们对对抗规则必要性的讨论。从比较法上看,研究以德国为典型的绝对无效的立法模式、以日本为典型的相对无效的立法模式,均对我国《民法典》第146条的分析与定性具有重要的借鉴和参考意义。从对抗规则的效力来源以及与现行法中对善意第三人保护的相关规定进行研讨,以明确我国《民法典》对抗性规则存在的必要性以及构建进路。Since Article 146 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law did not stipulate that collusion and hypocrisy shall not be used against a bona fide third party, academic circles have debated the validity of China’s collusion and hypocrisy. Article 146 of China’s Civil Code still follows the above provisions, and Article 763 stipulates fictitious accounts receivable, which has triggered scholars’ discussion on the necessity of adversarial rules. From the perspective of comparative law, the study of the absolutely invalid legislative model typical of Germany and the relatively invalid legislative model typical of Japan have important reference and reference significance for the analysis and characterization of Article 146 of the Civil Code of China. From the source of the effectiveness of the adversarial rule and the relevant provisions on the protection of bona fide third parties in the current law, this paper will discuss the necessity of the existence of adversarial rules in China’s Civil Code and the way to construct it.

关 键 词：通谋 虚伪 善意第三人 信赖原则 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]