实际施工人的优先受偿权之证成--以《建工司法解释一》第35条为中心

The Justification of the Actual Constructor’s Priority Right of Compensation Related with Construction-Discussion about Article 35 of Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in Hearing Cases of Disputes over Construction Contracts for Construction Projects(Ⅰ)

在建设工程施工合同纠纷中,关于实际施工人是否应当享有建设工程价款优先受偿权的问题,2021年1月1日起施行的《最高人民法院关于审理建设工程施工合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释(一)》第35条作出了明确的回应,只有与发包人订立建设工程施工合同的承包人才可以主张优先受偿权。但是该规定存在缺陷,一是司法解释体系内部具有难以调和的矛盾;二是最高人民法院无法统一法律适用,实现"类案类判",故有必要从深层意义上进行反思。在解释上,优先受偿权具有法定性、特殊性、优先性等特征,"合同无效导致优先受偿权丧失"的观点实属误解,实际施工人履行了建设工程义务,且与建筑工人生存利益更贴近,赋予其优先受偿权具有正当性。在功能分析上,借助比例原则进行审视,否定实际施工人的优先受偿权无助于维护建筑市场秩序的美好夙愿,反而与优先受偿权保护建筑工人利益的立法初衷相抵牾。因此,不妨在立法中直接承认实际施工人享有优先受偿权。至于促进建筑市场健康发展方面,规制承包人的行为才是根本之计。

During the judgement of cases of disputes over construction contracts for construction projects,whether the actual constructor should have the priority right of compensation related with construction.Article 35 of Interpretation of the Supreme Peopled Court on the Application of Law in Hearing Cases of Disputes over Construction Contracts for Construction Projects(Ⅰ),which implemented on January 1,2021 gave the clear answer.Only the contractor who concluded contract with client can claim the priority right of compensation.However,there are some defects of this article.The first flaw is there are some contradictions within judicial interpretation system itself,the second flaw is the Supreme People’s Court is unable to unify the application of this article and achieve similar cases and similar judgments,so it is necessary to rethink it over.In terms of interpretation,the priority right of compensation has three characteristics,legality,particularity and priority,and the view that“the invalidity of the contract leads to the loss of the priority right of compensation”is a totally misunderstanding.The actual constructor has fulfilled the obligation of the construction project,and it’s closer to the survival interests of construction workers,so it’s justified to grant the priority right of compensation.In terms of functional analysis,using the principle of proportionality to analyze,it’s not helpful to deny the priority right of compensation of the actual constructor to maintain the order of the construction market.On the contrary,it contradicts the original intention of the legislation of the priority right of compensation.Accordingly,the actual constructor should have the priority right of compensation.As for promoting the development of the construction market,it’s expedient to regulate contractors*behavior.