“虚伪”无须“通谋”:《民法典》第146条适用要件的历史解释视角——兼论德国法上“通谋虚伪表示”与中国法上“虚假意思表示”的异质

“Hypocrisy”Does not Need“Collusion”:Historical Interpretation of the Application Requirements of Article 146 of Civil Code——Also on the Difference between“Collusion Hypocrisy”in German Law and“False Expression of Intention”in Chinese Law

民法学界已达成共识,后《民法典》时代为解释时代,法典条文的适用要件是法释义学争论的核心之一。《民法典》第146条确立了“虚假意思表示规则”,目前主流解释为德国民法上的“通谋虚伪表示”。此解释路径关注形式逻辑的规范表达,而非权益保护的裁判实操。由此带来三个方面的难题:其一,在解释路径上,不符合我国的历史认知。其二,在逻辑结构上,不能涵摄单方虚伪表示与避法行为。其三,在司法审查上,实操性将面临很大的压力。《德国民法典》将虚伪表示分为真意保留、戏谑行为与通谋虚伪,分别规定于第116条、第118条、第117条,在行为规制上形成逻辑闭合。在我国原《民法总则》的制定中,立法者有意将“单方虚伪表示”条款与“串通”二字同时删去,条文设置与规制结构与德国法已大有不同,不能机械照搬“通谋虚伪表示”的学理解释。承接中国法上的“以合法形式掩盖非法目的”,遵循历史解释方法,将“虚假意思表示规则”解释为“以合法形式掩盖非法目的”的正向进化,对该条款的适用不以“通谋”为必要要件,上述难题将迎刃而解。好的解释方法应以建构减轻论证负担的法释义学为进路。

Civil Law scholars have formed a consensus that the post⁃civil code era is the era of interpretation,and the application requirements of the code provisions should be one of the core of the legal hermeneutics debate.Article 146 of Civil Code establishes“false expression of intention rule”,which is currently interpreted as“collusion false expression”in German Civil Law.This interpretation path pays too much attention to the standard expression of formal logic,rather than the practice of the judgment of rights and interests protection,which brings three difficulties:First,the interpretation path does not conform to Chinas historical cognition.Second,logical structure,can not contain unilateral false expression and avoid behavior.Third,there will be a lot of pressure on practicality in judicial review.The German Civil Code divides false representation into true intention reservation,joking behavior and collusion hypocrisy,which are stipulated in Article 116,118 and 117 respectively,forming a logical closure in behavior regulation.In the formulation of the General Principles of Civil Law,the legislator intentionally deleted the clause of“unilateral false expression”and the word of“collusion”at the same time.Following the“covering illegal purpose with legal form”in Chinese Law,and following the historical interpretation method,the“rule of false expression of meaning”is interpreted as the positive evolution of“covering illegal purpose with legal form”,and the application of this clause does not take“collusion”as the necessary element,so the above problems will be solved.A good method of interpretation should take the construction of legal hermeneutics to lighten the burden of argumentation as its approach.