题　名  民事法律行为若干问题思考  
作　者  李庆海  
作者单位  吉林大学,法学院,长春市 130012  
专　业  民法学  
指导教师  张瑞萍  
学位级别  303  
馆藏索取号  3990385  
中文文摘  随着我国社会主义市场经济的建立和发展以及新合同法的正式公布实施,我国民法中许多理论必将发生重大变化。民事法律行为制度作为民法理论之核心,理应重新发掘和检讨。本文以此为入点,对民法法律行为若干问题进行了分析和探讨,并据此对进一步完善我国民事法律行为制度提出了粗浅之管见。
全文共分五部分:
第一部分即民事法律行为与民事行为。笔者从法律行为的原始涵义出发,探究民事法律行为之本质涵义指出我国民法通则中并列使用“民事法律行为”与“民事行为”两个概念的不科学性。并进一步从学者对法律行为概念的不同解释,论述了法律行为并非以“合法性”为根本属性。主张不必在民法中并用“民事法律行为”和“民事行为”两个概念。
第二部分即民事法律行为与民事行为能力。笔者从一案例暴露出的问题出发,着重探讨了我国现有的民事行为能力态样存有的缺陷,指出我国也应设立禁治产制度,从而为科学地认定那些并非精神病人,但确已精神耗弱或心神丧失之人的行为能力提供法律依据。这样,既可以保护精神障碍本人的利益,也可以保护与之交易的相对人的利益,亦有利于完善我国民法民事主体制度。笔者还对设立禁治产制度应符合的条件进行了阐述,以利于立法的规范化。
第三部分即民事行为能力与民事责任能力。针对我国民法界多有把民事行为能力和民事责任能力混为一谈的状况,笔者从两者的主观要求程度不同、无民事行为能力人和限制行为能力人也可成为民事责任能力的主体、无民事行为能力人和限制民事行为能力人在特定情况下也能形成过错以及法律允许无民事行为能力人和限制民事行为能力人“纯获法律上之利益”使其成为责任能力主体具有现实可能等几方面进行了较深入的剖析。并对我国民法设定民事责任能力的标准作了初步设想,有利于我国民事法律行为制度的进一步完善。
第四部分即民事法律行为与意思表示。在这一部分中,笔者以民事法律行为构成要素——意思表示为出发点,分析探讨了我国目前民法关于意思表示暇疵理论研究之不足,并对我国《民法通则》把“意思表示真实”作为民事法律行为的条件提出质疑。指出:意思表示不真实的情况是十分复杂的,不得简单同等对待。为此,笔者本文把意思表示不真实情况中最易混淆的民事欺诈行为和单方虚假表示行为,从其本质涵义、构成要件、行为性质以及法律后果等方面作了严格区别,旨在阐明“意思表示不真实”情况之复杂性。并建议宜把“意思表示自由”作为民事法律行为的条件,此有利于市场经济的发展,有利于国家的稳定和发展,有利于提高全社会普通成员的创造力,也并不违背民法之“诚实信用”基本原则。
第五部分即民事法律行为与物权行为。笔者从学者对物权行为不同论述出发,对物权行为这一极具抽象性的法律概念,进行了较深入的论析,认为物权行为不是传统观点所认为的是法律行为.而是同时具有法律行为和事实行为两重性.尽管在现实形态上仍为一项行为。并从物权行为的法律行为属性和事实行为属性两个层面进行了分析。得出的结论是:物权行为的法律行为属性和事实行为属性不可分割,它具有法律行为和事实行为的“二象性”，正如物理学中光具有波粒“二象性”一样。

英文文摘  Along with the establishment and development of our country''s socialist market-oriented economy and the formal publication and enforcement of the New Law of Contract, Many theories in our Civil Law will veritably change greatly. The system of the civil Legal acts, which is the core of the civil theories, now should be explored and examined again. This article analyzes and delves some questions about civil legal acts and comes up with my humble opinions to strengthen the system of our civil legal acts.
Part I: Civil legal acts and civil acts. The author probes into the essential meaning of civil legal acts from the original meaning of "Act of Law " and points out that it''s unscientific to make the two concepts civil legal acts and civil acts compatible in General Principles of Civil Law. The author expounds and proves that legal acts haven''t taken Legality as fundamental property from the scholars'' different explanations about the concept of Act of Law and maintains it''s unnecessary to use the two concepts it''s unnecessary to use the two concepts of civil legal acts and civil acts simultaneously.
Part II : Civil legal acts and capacity to perform civil acts. The author emphatically probes into the shortcomings which exist in the present types of the capacity to perform civil acts in our Civil Law proceeding from the questions a case reflected and points out that the system of prohibited managing property should also be established in order to provide legal basis for those who are listless or mental-disabled, but not mental patients. Thus, it can not only protect the intents of the mental-disabled, but also protect those who make a deal with them. It''s also advantageous to perfect the principal system of our civil Law and Makes it more scientific and systematic. The author also clarifies the conditions, which are qualified to establish the conditions, which are qualified to establish the system of prohibited managing property. It is favorable to make legislation standardize.
Part III: Capacity to perform civil acts and capacity of civil liability. In view of the situation that capacity to perform civil acts and capacity of Civil Liability are often lumped together in Civil Law field, the author gives a deep and thorough analysis from the different extent of the two parties'' subjective requirements, Those of civil disabilities and those with limited competency can also be the subject of capacity of civil liability; Those of civil disabilities and those with limited competency can also make mistakes under specified conditions The Law allows that those of civil disabilities and those with limited competency "make a net profit of Law" and makes it possible to be the subject of liability capacity.
The author gives his tentative ideas of the standards that our Civil Law determines capacity of civil liability, which is helpful to further improve the system of our Civil Legal acts.
Part IV Civil legal acts and the intent is expressed. In this chapter, the author analyzes the insufficient study about the theory "the defective intent is expressed in our present civil law starting from the essential factor -- the intent is expressed, of which civil legal acts are composed and questions the validity that "the real intent is expressed" is regarded as the requirements of civil legal acts in our General Principles of Civil Law. The author points out that the situations "the unreal intent is expressed are very complicated which can''s be oversimplified. Therefore, the author distinguishes the most easily confused parts - civil deceit acts and one-party misrepresentation acts in the situations that the unreal intent is expressed from the essential meaning component factor act nature meaning, component factor, act nature and legal consequence in order to clarify the complexity of the situations that the unreal intent is expressed and suggests that the free intent is expressed should be regarded as the requirement of civil legal acts. It''s beneficial to the development of market-oriented economy and the stability of our country. It''s advantageous to improve the creative power of every common member of society and it doesn''t violate the basic, honest and trustworthy principle in Civil Law.
Part IV: Civil legal acts and right in rem acts. The author, starting from the scholars'' different understanding of right in rem act, gives a deep and thorough analysis about the extremely abstract legal concept of right in rem acts. The author thinks Right in rem acts are not legal acts that traditional viewpoint holds, but same as legal acts and factual acts, though it is still one act in the realistic pattern, The author draws a conclusion that legal act property and factual act property of Right in rem are inseparable after analyzing from the double aspects of legal act property and factual act property. It has the dualistic nature of legal act and factual act just as light has wave particle duality in physics.

关键词  民事法律行为,意思表示,自由词  
分类标识  D923.1  
论文注解日期  19990415  
总页数  33P