论贷款机构实际利率的披露义务 ——以典型案例为线索

On the Disclosure Obligation of Loan Institutions’ Actual Interest Rates—Taking Typical Cases as Clues

上海金融法院适用《民法典》首案,将借款法中专有的“利息透明”原则呈现在大众视野,要求贷款机构向借款人披露实际利率,对于缓解借款人的“利息幻觉”、明确真实债务负担,构建信息透明的借贷市场具有引领作用。同时,需要探究披露实际利率的正当性基础,包括《民法典》第496条第2款、《消费者权益保护法》第28条等现有法律基础和实际利率统一的计算标准;明确披露实际利率的适用范围,包括借款双方当事人具有明显的力量落差以及含有利息格式条款的情形;分析未履行披露义务的法律后果,包括《民法典》第680条第3款的“利息约定规则”的适用,以及利息格式条款的审查。

The Shanghai Financial Court applied the first case of the Civil Code, presenting the principle of “interest transparency” specifically in the Loan Law to the public, requiring loan institutions to disclose the actual interest rate to borrowers, which has a leading role in alleviating borrowers’ “interest illusion”, clarifying the true debt burden, and building an information transparent lending market. At the same time, it is necessary to explore the legitimacy basis for disclosing actual interest rates, including existing legal foundations such as Article 496 (2) of the Civil Code and Article 28 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, as well as unified calculation standards for actual interest rates;Clearly disclose the scope of application of the actual interest rate, including situations where there is a clear power gap between the parties to the loan and where there are interest format clauses;Analyze the legal consequences of failure to fulfill disclosure obligations, including the application of the “interest agreement rule” in Article 680 (3) of the Civil Code, as well as the review of interest format clauses.