|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2025)02-0210-11 |
| |
|
无权代理“善意”要件证明责任分配的法教义学解释路径 |
| |
李佳临，傅郁林 |
| |
|
（北京大学法学院，北京，100871） |
| |
| 摘 要： 根据规范构造，无权代理制度中相对人的“善意”为无过失的狭义无权代理责任和表见代理责任的权利发生要件，司法解释却采取将其作为权利妨碍要件的善意推定规则。突破“规范说”的证明责任分配方式会动摇法律的安定性，需慎重审视其正当性。由于在无权代理中表征代理权的客观事实无法塑造出高强度的权利外观，“善意”缺乏得到主张及证明的替代机制。同时，由于“善意”根据事实的多样性与开放性，法律无从先验地设定单一的根据事实，因此，善意取得和越权担保中的善意推定在无权代理中没有适用根基。此外，善意推定规则依赖的消极事实理论存在分类模糊和难以自洽的内在缺陷。通过理解“善意”作为评价性要件的证明方式和认定结构并对其进行司法实践的检验，可以为坚持以“规范说”作为无权代理“善意”要件的证明责任分配规则提供本土实践经验的支撑。 |
| |
| 关键词： 无权代理；规范说；证明责任；评价性要件；善意推定 |
| |
|
| |
Legal doctrinal interpretation path of burden of proof of “good faith” element in unauthorized agency |
| |
LI Jialin, FU Yulin |
| |
（School of Law, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China） |
| |
| Abstract: According to the normative construction of the provisions, the “good faith” of the relative party in the unauthorized agency system is an element of the occurrence of rights of no-fault unauthorized agency liability in the narrow sense and occurrence elements of apparent agency liability, but the judicial interpretation adopts the rule of presumption of good faith, which treats “good faith” as an element of the obstruction of rights. Breaking through the allocation model of proof liability of the “normative theory” may undermine the stability of the law, and its legitimacy requires careful scrutiny. In unauthorized agency, the objective facts representing agency rights cannot create a strong semblance of rights, so “good faith” lacks alternative mechanisms for assertion and proof. At the same time, due to the diversity and openness of the factual basis for “good faith”, the law cannot establish a single factual basis a priori. , Therefore, the presumption of good faith in bona fide acquisition and unauthorized guarantee has no basis for application in unauthorized agency. In addition, the theory of negative facts on which the presumption of good faith relies is inherently flawed due to its vagueness in categorization and difficulty in maintaining self-consistency. Understanding the methods for proving and determining the structure of “good faith” as an evaluative element, and testing it in judicial practice can provide local practical experience to support the adherence to the “normative theory” as the rule of the distribution of the burden of proof of “good faith” in unauthorized agency. |
| |
Key words: unauthorized agency; normative theory; burden of proof; the evaluative elements; presumption of “good faith” |
| |
|
|
