论无行为能力人纯获利益法律行为的效力

On the Effectiveness of the Legal Act of Obtaining Benefits for the Incompetent

作为行为能力制度对法律行为效力影响的例外,纯获利益法律行为的效力在限制行为能力人和无行能力人之间是否要区别对待,颇值得研究。就此《民法典》第144条存在法律漏洞,应进行目的性限缩。对该条规定的历史解释明显存在局限,基于客观目的论立场的有效说更为妥当,应当就纯获利益法律行为对第144条作目的性限缩,并类推适用第145条第1款关于限制行为能力人的规定。据此,应当在整理和修订关于《民法典》总则编的司法解释时,对《民通意见》第6条予以完善,从而确立无行为能力人实施纯获利益法律行为有效的立场。

As an exception to the effect of the capacity regime on the validity of juridical act, it is worth examining the distinction between the validity of juridical act that pure advantage person with limited capacity and the validity of juridical act that pure advantage person without capacity. Article 144 of the Civil Code has a legal loophole and the purposive approach of legal interpretation should be used for the purpose of gap-filling, while the historical approach obviously has its limits. In this regard, the doctrine of validity based on objective purpose is more appropriate, in other words, Article 144 should be interpreted in a purpose-restricted manner with respect to the validity of juridical act with pure benefits, and the provisions of Article 145(1) regarding person with limited capacity should be applied by analogy. Accordingly, when the judicial interpretation of general principles of the Civil Code is compiled and revised, the rules in Article 6 of the Supreme Court’s Judicial Interpretation on the General Principles of the Civil Law should be incorporated and improved, so as to recognize the validity of juridical act with pure benefits performed by person without capacity.