效力瑕疵合同的返还清算问题

针对效力瑕疵合同的法律效果,我国《民法典》确立了原物返还、价值返还和损害赔偿三个步骤的操作方法。价值返还的基础理论从早期"两不当得利独立请求权说""差额说"逐步发展为考虑牵连性的返还学说。就是否需要返还的认定,除了可归责于债权人的毁损不需要返还外,其他因返还义务人意志、过错和偶然风险导致的毁损都需要返还,偶然风险致损也存在回跳的可能性。就返还的标准而言,考虑到效力瑕疵合同的特殊性,"主观标准说"并不具有正当性,应当重新回到"客观标准说"。因为受领给付而获得的利益,在返还义务人明知瑕疵事由的情况下需要返还。返还义务人因为受领给付而自愿支出的必要费用、在债权人获益范围内支出的有益费用和因固有风险所遭受的损害也可以要求偿还。不同的效力瑕疵规定具有不同的规范目的,应当区分强制秩序规范和传统私法规范,前者可能对价值返还产生影响,后者原则上并不会介入价值返还中。

Issues Concerning Restitution and Liquidation of Contract Defects on Validity

For the legal effect of the contract with defective effectiveness, China’s Civil Code has established the operation method of three steps: return of the original, return of value and compensation for damages. This basic theory of value return has experienced from the early" Saldo Theory" and "Zweikondiktionen Theory", and gradually developed into the theory of return considering the relevance. As for the determination of whether it is necessary to return, except that the damage attributable to the creditor does not need to be returned, other damage caused by the will, fault and accidental risk of the return obligor need to be returned, and there is also the possibility that the creditor will be liable for repayment. In terms of the standard of return, considering the particularity of the contract with defective effect", subjective standard" is not justified and should be returned to" objective standard". Benefits obtained by receiving payment need to be returned when the obligor is aware of the defect. The necessary expenses voluntarily incurred by the obligor due to receiving payment, the beneficial expenses incurred within the benefit of the creditor and the damage suffered due to inherent risks can also be reimbursed. Different provisions on defects of effectiveness have different regulating purposes and should be distinguished between mandatory order norms and traditional private law norms. The former may have an impact on the return of value, while the latter does not intervene in the return of value in principle.