预期不履行的内部交叉与界分——以《民法典》第527、528、563、578条为中心

Internal Crossings and Bounds of Expected Nonperformance——It Enters on Articles 527,528,563 and 578 of the Civil Code

预期不履行的两套救济体系分别体现在不安抗辩制度和预期违约制度之中,两者之间在适用情形上存在区分的必要。“默示拒绝履行适用不安抗辩权”的观点不能解释为何仅在解除权的赋予上作区别对待,而在损害赔偿方面作一体化处理,故应限缩解释《民法典》第527条第1款第2项,改变将默示预期违约认定为一种不安抗辩事由的错误做法。《民法典》第528条通过拟制“预期违约”衔接不安抗辩制度和预期违约制度间的转化关系,虽有使守约方从被动防御走向主动进攻的积极意义,但导致了条文间的体系冲突。第528条规定的解除权有独立于第563条而单独适用的路径,仅需满足第527条的“不安抗辩法定事由+两个反面规定”即可成立,无须作为新的预期违约规则而衔接适用第563条第1款第2项。

The two relief systems of expected non-performance are respectively embodied in the system of uneasiness defense and the system of expected breach of contract,and it is necessary to distinguish between them in the applicable situation.“Implied refused to perform applicable unassured pleadings”cannot explain why merely discriminate on the empowerment of termination right whereas perform integrated processing on damage compensation.Thus the interpretation of the civil code in item 2,article 527(1)should be narrowed and the thought that the implied anticipatory breach is a kind of unassured pleadings should be corrected.Article 528 of the Civil Code,by drawing up the transition relationship between the uneasiness defense system and the expected breach system,has the positive significance of changing the non-breaching party from passive defense to active offense,but it leads to the system conflict between the provisions.The right to discharge under Section 528 has a separate path to be applied independently of Section 563.It only needs to satisfy the“statutory grounds for a protest+two adverse provisions”of Section 527 to be established,and does not need to be linked to the application of section 563,paragraph 1(2),as a new rule of prospective breach.