不安抗辩与预期违约的制度区分 --从引发不安情势的原因事由出发

The Institutional Distinction Between Insescurity Defence and Anticipatory Breach--Proceeding From Causes of Uneasy Situation

《民法典》第527条第1款对引发不安情势的原因事由类型的不加限制是导致不安抗辩与预期违约发生制度杂糅的根本原因,而《民法典》第527条第1款第2项的保留更是使得限缩解释难以实现。当引发不安情势的原因事由能够反映后履行方主观不具有履约意愿时,将会导致不安抗辩与预期违约在适用范围上重合,此时应当允许先履行方根据自身利益选择行使不安抗辩权等待担保,或是宜接行使预期违约解除权终止合同。在不安抗辩和预期违约适用范围重合的情形下,如果后履行方的行为已经导致合同主要债务履行不能,那么便没有不安抗辩的适用空间。

The unrestricted type of causes of the uneasy situation in article 527(1)of the Civil Code is the foundanental reason of the mixture of the defense of insecurity and the system of anticipatory default,and the reservation of article 527(1)(2)of the Civil Code makes it difficult to achieve the limited interpretation.When the causes and circumstances that trigger the uneasy situation can reflect the subjective unwillingness of the perfonning party to perform,it will lead to the overlap in the scope of application of the uneasiness defense and the expected breach,in which case the first performing party should be allowed to choose to exercise the uneasiness defense to wait for the security in its own interests,or direcdy exercise the expected breach of contract to terminate the contract.In the case where the scope of application of the uneasiness defence and the anticipated breach coincide,there is no room for the uneasiness defence to apply if the conduct of the subsequent performer has resulted in the inability to perfomi the principal obligation of the contract.