作者：万方
作者介绍：北京外国语大学法学院讲师，法学博士
出版日期：2017年4月9日
内容提要 《合同法》第174条并未明确对其他有偿合同所参照的买卖合同有关规定的范围,理论界和实务部门对股权转让合同是否能直接参照买卖合同相关规定都存在争议。通过对第67号指导案例以及同类股权转让案件的分析,可以总结出该类案件的法律适用规则:首先,作为特殊标的物,股权的移转和交付方式决定了其转让合同不应当适用《合同法》第167条规定的分期付款解除权;其次,在适用其他法定解除权时,应当从商事交易的特殊性角度出发,从严把握解除权的适用条件。由于商法与民法体系之间的价值取向各有侧重,商法更偏重效率价值以及外观主义而民法更偏重追求当事人间的公平正义,导致了同一行为的内外部价值评价出现矛盾,因此,从行为本身的属性来判断异类规则的适用性和适用程度是更为合理的解决方式。
关键词 股权转让合同 解除权 分期付款 商事合同
Abstract: Article 174 of the Contract Law does not define the range of regulations relevant to the business contract referred by other compensated contracts, and there exists disputes that whether the equity transfer contract can directly refer to regulations relevant to the business contract in the circle of theory and practice departments. By analyzing No. 67 guiding case and similar equity transfer cases, legal application rule of this kind of cases is concluded. First, as special subject matters, the pattern of equity transfer and delivery determines that its transfer contract should not apply to the installment cancellation right in article 167 of the Contract Law; second, while applying other legal cancellation rights, we should strictly handle the application condition of cancellation right from the perspective of commercial transaction's particularity. As the Commercial Law and the Civil Law have their own emphasized parts on value orientation, the Commercial Law emphasizes on the value of efficiency and the appearance doctrine, while the Civil Law stresses justice and fairness between parties, which leads to double evaluation of internal and external value on the same act. We also should judge the applicability and application degree of heterogeneous rules from attributes of acts, which is a more reasonable method.