需经行政审批的合同研究

法律硕士专业学位论文需经行政审批的合同研究Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration作者姓名：刘懿萱指导教师：洪海林副教授西南政法大学SouthwestUniversityofPoliticalScienceandLaw1内容摘要需经行政审批的合同是司法实践中经常遇见，但学界研究较少的领域。需经行政审批的合同属于未生效合同的一种，它是国家管制涉足与社会公共利益和国家利益密切相关的私权领域的体现，此类合同具有特殊性。本文主要包括三部分：需经行政审批的合同基本理论问题；需经行政审批的合同之法律约束力和合同效力；解除需经行政审批的合同之法律后果。在第一部分中，笔者首先通过阐明需经行政审批的合同之上位概念—未生效合同的概念，为需经行政审批的合同概念划定范围。其次，从《德国民法典》关于需批准生效的合同的内容出发，探寻我国需经行政审批的合同的定义。由于需经行政审批的合同与“违反法律、强制性规定的条款”具有相似性，为了进一步缕析二者关系，笔者进行了比较分析。再次，笔者从合同效力分类的历史发展过程和合同批准生效的原因两个角度深入探明需经行政审批的合同的内涵。最后，笔者论述了行政机关对合同进行审查的行为的性质。在第二部分中，笔者首先借若合同所有条款未生效为何会产生报批义务的话题，引出各位学者的学说并得出论点：在合同未生效时,合同具有法律约束力，若合同已经生效,那么合同产生法律效力。同时,笔者引出了最近学界流行的观点——用物权区分原则解释未生效合同的报批义务如何产生。之后，笔者认同刘贵祥的观点，需经行政审批的合同并不是所有条款处于未生效状态。“报批义务”条款已经产生合同效力，其他关于当事人基本权利义务内容的条款处于未生效状态。笔者利用各位学者的观点，我国的司法解释论证上述观点。其次，笔者探讨了当事人违反报批义务所承担的特殊责任。因为,司法解释认为当事人违反报批义务应当承担缔约过失责任，而司法解释规定的违反报批义务的法律后果又与缔约过失责任的内容相悖，因此各位学者提出不同意见。笔者认为报批义务条款已经生效，违反报批义务条款应当属于违约责任，而非缔约过失责任。在第三部分中，笔者从解除已经生效的合同出发，通过“法定解除、约定解除、协议解除”三个角度论述解除需经行政审批的合同具有可能性。其次，笔者讨论解除需经行政审批的合同之溯及力问题。笔者认为合同内容中关于原权利义务关系的内容溯及消2灭。再次，笔者从恢复原状与损害赔偿请求权两方面进一步阐释解除需经行政审批的合同之法律后果。关键词：需经行政审批合同；溯及力；合同解除；法律约束力1ABSTRACT“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”1isoftenmetinjudicialpractice,butnotintheacademicstudies.“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”isoneof“thepre-validatedcontract”,whichembodiesthestatecontrolintheprivatedomainandiscloselyrelatedtotheinterestsofthestateandpublic.Thiskindofcontractshasitsownfeatures.Thispapermainlyincludesthreeparts:TheBasicTheoryOf“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”;TheLegallyBindingForceAndTheEffectivenessOf“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”;TheLegalConsequencesOfRemoving“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”Inthefirstpart,theauthorfirstlymakesadefinitionof“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”byillustratingtheconceptof“Thepre-validatedcontract”,whichincludestheformer.Furthermore,forexploringtheessenceofthedefinitionof“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”,theconceptof“genehmigung”intheGermanCivilCodeisadoptedforareference.Inordertodistinguish“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”from“Thecontractviolatingthecompulsoryprovisionsoflawsandadministrativeregulations,”2afurthercomparativeanalysisofthesetwokindsofcontractisputtousebytheauthor.Moreover,theauthortriestorevealtheconnotationof〝Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”bytwoaspects:oneisthedevelopingoftheeffectivenessofthecontractandtheotheristhereasonswhythecontractswillbeapprovedbytheadministration.Eventually,theconductofapproving“thepre-validatedcontract”bytheadministrationwillaswellbediscussedinthispart.Inthesecondpart,bydiscussingwhyregistrationorapplicationfortheadministrativeapprovaltothecontractsisrequired,theauthordrawsaconclusionfromtheargumentson“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”fromdifferentscholarsthat“The1根据《合同法》第四十四条的官方英文翻译，法律、行政法规规定应当办理批准、登记等手续才能生效的合同，英文表述应该为“contractsthataresubjecttoapprovalorregistrationasstipulatedbyrelevantlawsoradministrativeregulations”。而本文所讨论的“需经行政审批的合同”则是前者生效的前状态，所以不能直接套用上述英文解释。而在英美法系中并没有这类型的合同，故并没有相应的词汇与之对应。本文拟用“pre-validatedcontract”来表达“需要审批或者登记的合同”在英语中的意思。“pre-validated”描述的是合同已经成立，但是需要符合一定的条件才能发生效力，而这些条件仍未成就时候的客观状态。相对应地，需经行政审批的合同的英文表述为“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”。生效合同则为“Thevalidatedcontract”2《中华人民共和国合同法》第五十二条第五款，英文译本。2pre-validatedcontract”leadstothelegalbindingforcewhile“Thevalidatedcontract”haseffectiveness.Theauthoralsodemonstratesatrendingviewpointonthecurrentacademiccirclesthatthereasonwhyapre-validatedcontractistobeapprovedorregisteredintheperspectiveof“theDivisionTheoryofDinglichesVerfugungsgeschafteandVerpnichtnngsgeschafte”.Furthermore,theauthorcreativelyarguesthatnotallconditionsin“Thepre-validatedcontractwithoutapprovalorregistration”inevitablyhappentoinvalidatedeveniftheregistrationorapprovalisabsent.Thecontractualconditionscanbedividedintotwopartsthatoneistheconditionstoapproveorregisterwhiletheotherisnot.Intheauthor’sopinions,theformershouldtakeeffectbutthelatter,whichconcernthebasicrightsofthepartiesshouldremaininastateof“pre-validated”.ThepointsmentionedabovewillbeillustratedwiththediverseargumentsfromthescholarsandthejudicialinterpretationfromtheSupremePeople'sCourtofPRC.Moreover,theauthoralsotriestofigureoutwhatconsequencesarethepartiesfacingwhendisobeyingtheobligationtoregister.ThereisarealdilemmathatthejudicialinterpretationfromtheSupremePeople’sCourthasadifferent,asthematteroffact,however,completelycontraryversionsofwhatresultswillbeposedtothepartiesfailingtogettheircontractsregistered.Therefore,whether“DefectLiabilityoftheAgreement”or“liabilitiesforbreachofcontract”shallthepartiesabovetobearstillremainsuncertain.Despitethedifferentstandpointsfromthescholarsonthisissue,theauthoragreeswiththeargumentthatsincetheconditionstoapproveorregisterhasalreadytakeneffect,theconsequenceswithwhichthepartiestofaceupwhenviolatingtheobligationtoregistertheircontractsarebynomeansthe“DefectLiability