民事职务行为司法判定的逻辑理路——兼论《中华人民共和国民法总则》第61条、第170条之体系安排

The Logic of Judicial Judgment of Civil Official Behavior———Also on the System Arrangements of Article 61 and Article 170 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China

近现代民法将法人、非法人组织构造为与自然人等量齐观的民事主体,但不同于自然人,法人、非法人组织自身无法行为,须由法定代表人、负责人或工作人员代为,其在职权范围内所为的法律行为即为职务行为,法律后果由组织承受。职务行为虽然得到司法实践的广泛肯认,但其认定缺乏统一明确的标准,法官的自由裁量仍然占据主导,已严重侵蚀司法权威与公信。根据行为人的身份可以分为代表人职务行为和工作人员职务行为,《中华人民共和国民法总则》第61条、第170条对此作了区别规定,两类职务行为在性质、构成、效力上具有重要区别。其中,判定代表人职务行为效力的关键在于明确"超越权限"的具体所指与正确理解"相对人是否知道或者应当知道";工作人员职务行为效力的确定则应符合身份、职权、目的三要件。

The modern civil law constructs legal persons and unincorporated organizations as civil subjects that are equal to natural persons.However,unlike natural persons,legal persons and unincorporated organizations cannot act on their own,and they must be represented by legal representative,responsible person or staff.The legal acts within the scope of the terms of reference are job behaviors and legal consequences are borne by the organization.Although the behavior of the post is widely recognized in judicial practice,its determination lacks a unified and clear standard.The discretion of judges still dominates and has seriously eroded judicial authority and credibility.According to the identity of the perpetrator,it can be divided into the duties of deputies and the duties of the staff.The provisions of Articles 61 and 170 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China distinguish between them.There are important differences in composition,effectiveness,and effectiveness.Among them,the key to judging the effectiveness of the representative's job behavior lies in clarifying what the“overriding authority”specifically refers to and correctly understanding“whether or not the relative knows or should know”,the determination of the effectiveness of the staff's job conduct should conform to the three requirements of identity,authority,and purpose.