先履行抗辩权之解构

Deconstruction of Rights to Suspend Prior to Performance

先履行抗辩权缺乏充分的理论依据,还可被现有抗辩权替代。先给付义务须区分为固定与非固定两种类型。固定先给付义务一直未履行,后给付义务持续不届期。债务未届期是债务人的抗辩权,会排斥先履行抗辩权与同时履行抗辩权的适用。在非固定先给付义务中,后给付义务届期后,双方履行顺序转化为同时履行;先给付义务人因已违约,不符合由诚信原则推导出的合同忠实要件,丧失抗辩权,后给付义务人享有同时履行抗辩权。应取消先履行抗辩权;学者与实务工作者应以《合同法》第66条为中心解释架构统一的不履行合同抗辩权。

Rights to suspend prior to performance lack sufficient theoretical basis,and can also be replaced by an existing right to suspend.The first payment obligation must be divided into fixed and non-fixed two types.Fixed first payment obligation has not been fulfilled,after the payment of obligations continued without period.Debt is not the debtor's right of defense and will exclude rights to suspend prior to performance and the implementation of the right of defense.In the non-fixed first payment obligations,after the payment of obligations of the period,the two sides to fulfill the order of performance at the same time.The first payment of the obligor is due to breach of contract,breach of contract loyalty,loss of right of defense,after the payment of the obligation to enjoy the implementation of the right of defense.The legislator should abolish the performance of the right to pleadings;scholars and practitioners should explain the unified structure of rights to suspend of non-performance centering on Article 66 of Contract Law.