导　　师： 辜明安

学科专业： 0301

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 西南财经大学

摘　　要： 伴随经济快速发展,合同在市场经济中起到的作用愈加重要,其中合同违约金作为当事人的一项重要救济制度在维护经济秩序稳定、促进经济效率提升上有着无可比拟的优势。但是由于约定违约金属于当事人意思自治的范畴,易导致约定的违约金与实际的违约损失之间有较大的差距,背离违约金追求公平、正义的目的,因此法律有必要介入当事人意思自治,对不适当的违约金进行司法调整。本文即是对违约金的司法调整予以研究,重点是我国如何合理适用该制度予以分析。 本文除导论和结语外,共分3部分。 第一部分,违约金司法调整的制度价值。德、法国家与英、美国家对违约金的性质认定主要区别在于是否承认惩罚性质的违约金。违约金应当具有补偿性和惩罚性双重性质；违约金的司法调整是对违约金偏离公正价值的修正,是对行为人“无限自由”的限制,实现了公平正义价值的回归,故该制度具有正当性。 第二部分,我国违约金的司法调整现状。违约金的司法调整启动应由当事人向司法机关提出请求；举证责任的分配,应当区分当事人请求增加违约金和请求调减违约金的情况,对不同的请求分配不同的举证责任。调整违约金的判断核心是“违约损失”,其中包括了违约主观因素、合同履行情况、个案性质、替代交易成本考量、衡量违约行为背后的利益平衡因素等判断要点。我国违约金的司法调整制度主要存在适用违约金的司法调整相关法律规定过于机械、缺乏弹性,且一些重要程序缺失易导致在审判中丧失公平等问题。另外,违约金的司法调整标准也过于原则,不利于法官裁量。 第三部分,完善我国违约金司法调整制度的建议。建议将惩罚性违约金在法律条文上予以明确,便于合同当事人在拟定合同的时候达成理性的约定；增加故意违约不得请求调减违约金的规定；增加适用违约金不以实际损害的发生为前提的判断标准,不论损害是否发生,当事人都必须支付违约金；在违约金司法调整启动条件和期限的法律适用上严格按照在一审举证期限内由当事人请求的规则操作；当事人的举证责任应区分不同情形予以分配；法官释明权行使范围及条件应该严格限制和有条件适用。 本文可能的创新之处：作为一名审判员,笔者主要从司法实践的角度对违约金的司法调整结合我国国情予以分析。对学界争议比较大的违约金的性质明确具有补偿性和惩罚性双重属性,并且对其优越性予以了分析。最后提出相关完善建议。本文不足之处,主要在于对违约金的司法调整在司法实践中的运用分析还不够透彻,理论分析还不详尽。 With the rapid development of economy, contracts play a more and more important role in the market economy. Penalty, an important relief system of the contract parties, possesses incomparable advantages in maintaining stable economic order and promoting economic efficiency. However, penalty, specified on the basis of the client's will, leads to a large gap between the agreed liquidated damages and the actual default loss, which deviates from the objective of fairness and justice the penalty system pursues. Therefore, law is required to interfere with party autonomy for judicial adjustment of inappropriate penalty. This thesis, concerned with the judicial adjustment of penalty focuses on how China applies the system reasonably. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the thesis is divided into3parts. The first part analyzes the system value that the judicial adjustment of penalty holds. The main difference of the nature of liquidated damages between countries like Germany and France and those of Britain and America lies whether to admit punitive penalty. Penalty should have both compensatory and punitive nature. The judicial adjustment is to revise the deviation from the fair value of penalty and places restrictions on the doer's "unlimited freedom", returning the value of fairness and justice, so the system is justified. The second part discusses the status quo of judicial adjustment of penalty in China. Firstly, the penalty judicial adjustment start-up shall be borne by the parties to the judicial authority; in terms of the allocation of the burden of proof, the situation whether the parties request to increase the penalty or reduce the penalty should be distinguished. Moreover, the allocation of the burden of proof varies according to different requests. The core of identifying penalty adjustment is "the default loss", which consists of factors like subjective default, contract implementation, case nature, substitute transaction cost, interest balance behind default behavior, etc. The major problem of penalty judicial adjustment system exists in China is that the relevant legal provisions are too mechanical and lack flexibility and some important procedures, causing the loss of justice in the trial. In addition, the adjustment standards lay too much emphasis on principles that are not conducive to the judge's discretion. The third part proposes suggestions to perfect the penalty system of China. Punitive liquidated damages should be stated clearly in legal provisions,which helps the parties reach a rational agreement when preparing a contract; reducing liquidated damages in deliberate default should not be requested; liquidated damages not to be paid based on the actual damage, whether damages occur or not, the parties must pay penalty. In applying the entry condition of penalty judicial adjustment and duration of the law, it is essential to cohere with the parties'requests In the first instance proof period; the burden of proof of the parties should distinguished and distributed in the light of different situations; judge's interpretation right scope and conditions should be limited strictly and applied conditionally. Possible innovations of this article:as a judge, the author mainly analyzes the judicial adjustment of penalty from the perspective of judicial practice and the situation in China. The author states that penalty, which arouses huge controversy among academic field, is in nature both compensatory and punitive and also supplies an analysis of its superiority. Finally, relevant suggestions are put forward. The shortcomings of this research are that it fails to give an incisive analysis of how to apply the penalty judicial adjustment in practice and the theoretical analysis is not detailed.

关 键 词： 违约金 调整 完善建议

分 类 号： [D923.6 D926]

领　　域： [政治法律] [政治法律] [政治法律]