体系化视角下的恶意串通规则

The Rule of Malicious Collusion in a Systemic Perspective

恶意串通损害第三人利益行为是民事法律行为无效的法定事由之一,《民法典》第154条规定了恶意串通行为的效力,为调整此类行为提供了明确的法律依据。在适用时,应明确《民法典》中恶意串通规则的调整范围和法律效果,将该行为作为相对无效的行为对待,只能由特定第三人主张其无效。应当区分恶意串通行为与虚假民事法律行为,在两者发生竞合的情况下,可以优先适用虚假民事法律行为的规则。应当区分恶意串通与债权人撤销权,在撤销权与恶意串通发生冲突时,应当优先保护行使撤销权的债权人利益。应区分恶意串通损害第三人利益的行为与代理人与相对人恶意串通损害被代理人利益的行为,前者在性质上属于无效民事法律行为,后者在性质上属于效力待定的法律行为。由于恶意串通行为还涉及对第三人利益的侵害,因而也可能涉及侵权责任法规则的适用。

Malicious collusion to harm the interests of third parties is one of the statutory reasons for the invalidity of civil legal acts.Article 154 of the Civil Code stipulates the effectiveness of malicious collusion,providing a clear legal basis for adjusting such acts.In application,it should be clarified that the malicious collusion rule in the Civil Code has a unique scope of adjustment and legal effect.This behavior should be treated as relatively invalid and can only be claimed invalid by a specific third party.It is necessary to distinguish between malicious collusion and false civil legal acts.In the event of a conflict between the two,the rules for false civil legal acts can be applied first.It is necessary to distinguish between mali-cious collusion and the creditor's right to revoke.When there is a conflict between the right to revoke and malicious collu-sion,priority should be given to protecting the interests of the creditor exercising the right to revoke.We should distinguish between acts of malicious collusion that harm the interests of third parties,and acts of malicious collusion between agents and counterparties that harm the interests of the principal.The former is an invalid civil legal act in nature,while the latter is a legal act with undetermined effectiveness in nature.Due to the fact that malicious collusion also involves infringement of the interests of third parties,it may also involve the application of the rules of tort liability law.