论恶意串通

Malicious Collusion in Contract Law

《民法通则》第58条第1款第4项和《合同法》第52条第2项规定的恶意串通之法律行为无效规则,仅规制当事人以恶意串通订立法律行为(合同)的方式损害他人(第三人)利益的情形。表面上似也满足恶意串通规则要件的许多情形,实际应由通谋虚伪表示、法律行为违法或违背公序良俗无效、债权人撤销权等制度分别处理。恶意串通规则仅在保护特定第三人的特定债权时才可能有独立意义,目的是恢复该第三人获得实际履行(而非仅金钱赔偿)救济的可能。该规则的构成要件(主客观要件及法律行为整体的背俗性)与法律效果(法律行为相对无效且其主张受除斥期间限制)的解释均受此功能影响,而其是否有存在必要,取决于我们是否接受更直接的侵权法救济思路。

Article 52 （2） of the Contract Law of the People＇s Republic of China stipulates the doctrine of malicious collusion. It only deals with the contracts concluded by parties who engaged in malicious collusion to the detriment of third parties. There are various cases where the doctrine of malicious collusion seems to apply at the first glance, but actually they should be governed by other rules respectively with regard to sham transaction, illegal contracts, contracts contrary to public policy and creditor＇s right of revocation. The doctrine of malicious collusion merely plays a role in protecting a specific third party＇s right as a creditor （who entered into another contract with the obligor of the contract in dispute concerning the same subject matter） from being deprived of the right to specific performance （rather than to monetary compensation）. This unique function leads to a restrictive interpretation of both the constitutive requirements and the legal effect of the doctrine. For the former, it requires a strict scrutiny of its subjective element （＂malicious collusion＂）, objective element （＂being detrimental to third parties＂） and the na- ture of the contract as a whole. For the latter, it means that the contract involving malicious collusion should be ＂relatively invalid＂, namely, not void but voidable. Only a protected specific third party has the right to avoid the contract and this right shall be exercised within a reasonable limited period. Ultimately, whether the doctrine of malicious collusion is indispensable depends on whether we could resort to tort law directly for specific remedies.