惩罚性违约金例外酌减制度的解释与重构:契约自由与契约正义的平衡视角

Interpretation and Reconstruction of the Exceptional Reduction of Penalty:A Balanced Perspective of Contractual Freedom and Justice

从两大法系演化趋势看,惩罚性违约金不予酌减是一般原则,酌减仅是例外规则。原则不酌减体现了契约自由,而例外酌减贯彻了契约正义。《民法典》第585条第2款规定的违约金酌减规则系效力性规范,与之相抵触的法律行为无效,但该条款未甄别惩罚性违约金与补偿性违约金。若缔约各方未事先明确违约金性质,且裁判者在穷尽多种解释方法后仍无法精准甄别,系争违约金应被推定为惩罚性违约金。仅当惩罚性违约金严重畸高时,裁判者始有权应债务人之请求启动酌减程序。主合同标的额20%或违约损失30%都不宜作为判定惩罚性违约金严重畸高的标准。为实现个案公正,建议在斟酌各种例外酌减因素的基础上,用动态的个案自由裁量模式取代僵硬的一刀切模式。

Judging from the evolutionary trends of the two major legal systems,penalty shouldn’t be reduced as a general principle to reflects freedom of contract,and may only be reduced as an exceptional rule to implement contractual justice.The penalty reduction stipulated in Article 585(2)of Civil Code is a mandatory norm.However,this clause doesn’t distinguish penalty and liquidated damages.If the contracting parties haven’t clarified the nature of penalty,and the judge is unable to identify it after exhausting various methods of interpretation,the disputed clause shall be considered penalty.The judge may initiate reduction proceedings at the request of the debtor only if the penalty is excessively high.Neither 20%of the subject matter of the main contract nor 30%of the loss of breach of contract should be used as a litmus test for determining the excessive penalty.In order to achieve justice in individual cases,it is recommended to adopt a dynamic case-by-case discretionary model and consider various factors.