违约金功能定位的反思

Reflections on the Functions of Penalty Clause in Civil Contract

基于对违约金约定数额过高会导致债权人不当得利之担心,违约金被解释为赔偿性,并允许债务人申请酌减。这样的解释并无逻辑与实质根据,赔偿性违约金并非恢复违约金约定实质自由的适合工具。从当事人意思自由出发,惩罚性违约金才是本来意义上的违约金,主要发挥履约担保的功能,是原给付义务,是主给付义务的从义务,而与作为损害赔偿额之预定的赔偿性违约金不同。因此,违约金的酌减规则不应仅考虑实际损害的大小,而应根据债权人的担保目的予以判断,由此形成当事人之间的实质平衡。

In wew of the concern that an excessively high sum ot a penalty clause may reduce unjust enrichment ot the creditor, the penalty clause is interpreted as a compensatory penalty clause which can be reduced at judicial discretion upon request of the debtor. This article, considering that the compensatory penalty clause is not an appropriate means to regain the essential freedom of stipulation in penalty clauses, regards this interpretation to be lacking logical and substantial ground. According to the autonomy of will of parties, this article maintains that the actual meaning of penalty clause should be punitive penalty clause. Penalty clause, which is the original obligation of performance and the obligation of subordinate performance with the function of guaranteeing performance, is different from compensatory penalty clause, which aimsat liq-uidating damages. Therefore, the rule of reducing penalty clause should be judged upon the creditor＇s aim of guarantee rath-er than be solely determined by the substantial sums of damages, thereby leading to the actual equilibrium between parties.