违约精神损害赔偿制度的适用研究
Research on the application of compensation system for mental Damage in breach of contract
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
在中国,违约精神损害赔偿是一个备受争议的问题。传统民法观点认为违约责任中不包括精神损害,精神损害属于侵权责任。因违约而产生精神损害的案例不断出现,部分学者开始肯定违约精神损害赔偿的合理性。在此背景下,本文通过对《民法典》第996条的文义解释和系统解释两个角度的分析,得出立法者对于违约精神损害赔偿的态度模糊不清。而司法解释却旗帜鲜明的反对违约精神损害赔偿制度。这两者的矛盾也引发了司法审判中的混乱。文章使用大数据采集司法案例,发现虽然多数法官依照司法解释否定违约精神损害赔偿,但部分法官立足于个案正义,对违约精神损害赔偿予以肯定。然后,文章对否定违约精神损害赔偿的观点予以反驳,从弥补责任竞合的漏洞、符合可预见规则的要求、符合完全赔偿原则以及司法实践可为赔偿数额提供经验四个角度为构建违约精神损害赔偿制度展开理论辩护。本文提出违约精神损害赔偿需要满足一般性违约的条件,即违约行为的存在、受损害方遭受严重的精神损害以及违约行为与精神损害之间存在因果关系这三点。最后,为了防止违约精神损害赔偿制度被滥用,应将违约精神损害的主体限制为自然人,同时对合同类型作出限制,以此从侧面规制违约精神损害赔偿制度。
Abstract
In China, compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is a controversial issue. The traditional civil law view holds that the liability for breach of contract does not include mental damage, and that mental damage belongs to tort liability. Cases of mental damage caused by breach of contract continue to appear, and some scholars have begun to affirm the rationality of compensation for breach of contract mental damage. In this context, this article analyzes the textual interpretation and systematic interpretation of Article 996 of the Civil Code and concludes that the legislator’s attitude towards compensation for mental damages for breach of contract is ambiguous. However, the judicial interpretations clearly oppose the system of compensation for mental damages in breach of contract. The contradiction between the two has also caused confusion in the judicial trial. The article uses big data to collect judicial cases and finds that although most judges deny compensation for mental damages for breach of contract in accordance with judicial interpretations, some judges affirm the compensation for mental damages based on the justice of individual cases. Then, the article refutes the view of negating the compensation for breach of contract mental damage, and launches a theoretical defense for constructing the compensation system for breach of contract mental damage from four perspectives, namely, to make up for the loopholes in the overlap of responsibilities, meet the requirements of predictability rules, and meet the principle of complete compensation,and judicial practice can provide experience for the amount of compensation. This article proposes that compensation for breach of contract mental damage needs to meet the conditions of general breach of contract, that is, there is a breach of contract, the injured party suffers serious mental damage, and there is a causal relationship between breach of contract and mental damage. Finally, in order to prevent the breach of contract mental damage compensation system from being abused, the subject of breach of contract mental damage should be restricted to natural persons, and at the same time, the contract type should be restricted. These two points should be used to limit the breach of contract mental damage compensation system.
참고문헌 (15)
- 王利明, "侵权责任法与合同法的界分——以侵权责任法的扩张为视野", 中国法学, (3) (2011)
- 王利明, "违约责任和侵权责任的区分标准", 法学, (5) (2002)
- 柳经纬, "违约精神损害赔偿立法问题探讨——以〈民法典各分编(草案)〉第七百七十九条为对象", 暨南学报(哲学社会科学版), (7) (2019)
- 甘文强, "违约所致精神损害的民法典保护", 中南财经政法大学研究生学报, (6), pp.92~ (2019)
- 瞿灵敏, "精神损害赔偿惩罚性与惩罚性赔偿补偿性之批判——兼论精神损害赔偿与惩罚性赔偿的立法完善", 东方法学, (2) (2016)
- 朱晓平, "违约责任中的精神损害赔偿问题研究", 法律适用, (11), pp.53~ (2017)
- 吴奕锋, "论精神性履行利益的违约损害赔偿——从62份婚礼摄影合同判决展开的理论建构", 华东政法大学学报, (4) (2019)
- 陆青, "违约精神损害赔偿问题研究", 清华法学, (5) (2011)
- 崔建远, "精神损害赔偿绝非侵权法所独有", 法学杂志, (8) (2012)
- 尹志强, "论违约精神损害赔偿的正当性及适用范围", 中国政法大学学报, (6) (2014)
- 龙著华, "违约责任中的精神损害赔偿", 政治与法律, (1) (2006)
- 杨显滨, "违约精神损害赔偿制度的中国式建构", 当代法学, (1) (2017)
- 徐静, "我国违约精神损害赔偿责任制度的构建——以"合同法"第113条解释论为中心", 甘肃政法学院学报, (1) (2012)
- 黄金桥, "违约精神损害赔偿的理论障碍及其克服", 北方法学, (3) (2007)
- 杨立新, "中华人民共和国民法典条文要义" (2020), 中国法制出版社
