建设工程分包合同“背靠背”条款的效力问题研究——基于2017~2022年204份二审判决书的实证分析

Research on Validity of“Back-to-Back”Clause in Construction Project Subcontract Empirical Analysis Based on 204 Second-Instance Judgments from 2017 to 2022

建设工程领域“背靠背”条款具有分担风险的功能,司法实践对“背靠背”条款适用的标准不一,裁判尺度不同。运用二元logistic回归分析和夏普利值分解技术对2017~2022年全国204份二审裁判文书进行统计分析,“背靠背”条款的类型、性质、效力和总包人的行权方式均对法院的判决结果产生重要影响。实践中,“背靠背”条款分为条件型条款和时间型条款,前者为附条件条款,后者为履行期间的约定。依最高人民法院的观点,在分包合同无效的情况下,总包人不能主张参照适用“背靠背”条款,但无论分包合同有效抑或无效,法院通常会通过分配举证责任的路径来保护分包人的利益。认定“背靠背”条款无效的现有理论并不充分,法院应审慎认定条款效力。

"Back-to-back"clause in the field of construction project has the function of sharing risks between the parties.Judicial practice has different standards for"back-to-back"clauses,and different adjudication scales.This paper uses the binary logistic regression analysis and the Shapley value decomposition to conduct a statistical analysis on 204 secondinstance judgments across our country from 2017 to 2022,finding that the type,nature,effect of the"back-to-back"clause and the way the general contractors exercise their right have a significant impact on the court's decision to support or reject the general contractor's defense.In practice,"back-to-back"clauses are divided into conditional type and time-based type.The former is a conditional clause and the latter is an agreement on payment time.According to the view of the Supreme People's Court of China,when the construction subcontract is invalid,the general contractor cannot ask the court to refer to the"back-to-back"clause.But no matter whether the construction subcontract is valid or invalid,the court usually protects the interests of the subcontractor by allocating the burden of proof between the parties.The existing reasons that the"back-to-back"clause is invalid are not sufficient,so the court shall exercise caution in determining effect of article.