通谋虚伪规则在金融领域的适用——以(2020)京民终36号判决为例

Application of Rule of False Expression on Intent in Financial Field——Taking Beijing High People’s Court Final Civil Judgment (2020) No.36 as an Example

通谋虚伪规则是《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)总则中规定的一项民事规则。为了与穿透式金融监管改革相契合,在金融案件的审判中,法院日益倾向于运用通谋虚伪规则,突破金融产品的外部法律设计,以民间借贷法律关系确定其法律效力。对(2020)京民终36号判决进行研究发现,商事行为与民事行为存在区别,如果忽视商行为的外观,坚持探寻商主体内含于心的真实意愿,忽视商业效益,不利于商业的运转。通谋虚伪规则作为民法的一项制度,应当审慎适用于金融领域。此外,本案体现了当前审判倾向中目的解释论逐渐偏重的迹象,法院不应在文义解释没有争议的情况下,忽略文义解释的优先性。最后,司法应该坚持审慎立场,坚守司法的被动性和最终性,不能随意对合同效力进行无效处理,避免司法与行政界限模糊,防止以“政策”代替“法律”。

The rule of false expression on intent is a civil rule in The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China. In order to fit in the penetrating financial regulation reform, in the trial of financial cases, courts are increasingly inclined to apply the rule of false expression on intent to break through the external legal design of financial products and determine their legal effects by the private lending legal relationship. Through the study of the Beijing High People’s Court Final Civil Judgment(2020) No.36, this paper argues that there is a distinction between commercial acts and civil acts. It is detrimental to commerce if the appearance of commercial acts and commercial benefits are ignored. As a system in civil code, the rule should be prudently applied to the financial field. In addition, this case reflects the signs of preference of purposive interpretation theory. Courts should not ignore the priority of contextual interpretation when it is not controversial. Finally, the judiciary should adhere to a prudent position, adhere to passivity and finality, and not arbitrarily invalidate the validity of the contract. The boundary between judiciary and administration cannot be confused, avoiding substituting “policy” for “law”.