自我行为中的利益冲突及其规制——《民法总则》第168条解释论

Conflict of Interests in Self-dealing and its Regulation——The interpretation theory of Article 168 of the General Principles of Civil Law

自我行为中普遍存在利益冲突的风险,为维护被代理人的利益,《民法总则》第168条原则上禁止代理人实施自我行为。该规定实质上是对代理权的法定限制,代理人违反该限制实施自我行为的,构成无权代理,有待被代理人的追认。为维护法律的稳定性和交易安全,《民法总则》第168条在适用上要求代理人同时以自己或第三人的名义与作为被代理人代理人的自己实施法律行为,在个案中被代理人的利益是否遭受损害在所不问。作为适用的例外,《民法总则》第168条仅规定了被代理人同意或追认的情形,范围过窄,与该条维护被代理人利益的立法目的不符。为了实现《民法总则》第168条的立法目的,应当对其进行目的性限缩解释,承认专为履行债务和使被代理人纯获法律上利益的自我行为的效力。对于代理人以规避《民法总则》第168条的适用为目的所实施的形式上虽不构成自我行为但实质上存在利益冲突的代理行为,应当类推适用该条规定。

Conflict of interests exists extensively in self-dealings.In order to protect the interests of the principal,Article 168 of the General Principles of Civil Law prohibits the agent from self-dealing.This provision is essentially a statutory restriction on the power of attorney.If the agent violates the restriction and deals with himself,he acts without authorization and the deal has to be confirmed by the principal.To ensure the stability of law and the security of the transaction,Article 168 is based on the premise that the agent appears on both sides of the legal act.Whether the interests of the principal are damaged or not in a specific case is of no concern.As exceptions to the rule,Article 168 only allows for self-dealings consented or confirmed by the principal.The exceptions are so few that it is inconsistent with the legislative purpose of Article 168.In order to achieve the purpose of legislation,Article 168 should be interpreted in consideration of its purpose by recognizing the effectiveness of self-dealings which are exclusively for the performance of debts or purely bring benefits in law to the principal.For acts carried out by the agent for the purpose of circumventing the law,Article 168 shall analogously apply,although these acts do not constitute self-dealing in their appearance but the risk of conflict of interests exist in substance.