民法典下实际施工人起诉发包人的诉权基础
The Basis of the Litigation Right of the Actual Builder to Sue the Developer under the Civil Code
摘要: 最高人民法院在司法解释中规定实际施工人可以以直接起诉和提起代位权之诉两种诉讼方式直接向发包人主张权利,实质上赋予了实际施工人以实体权利。理论上,实际施工人直接起诉的诉权基础应当理解为突破不当得利之债的相对性。民法典实施后,第25条不应再被适用,第24条则建议吸纳进民法典或另行作出解释。
Abstract: The Supreme People’s Court stipulated in the judicial interpretation that the actual builder can directly claim the rights to the developer through two litigation methods, namely direct lawsuit and subrogation right lawsuit, which essentially endowed the actual builder with substantive rights. Theoretically, the basis of the litigation right of the actual constructor to directly sue should be understood as the relativity of breaking through the debt of unjust enrichment. After the implementation of the Civil Code, Article 25 should no longer be applied, while Article 24 is recommended to be incorporated into the Civil Code or to be interpreted separately.
文章引用:邹婷婷. 民法典下实际施工人起诉发包人的诉权基础[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2020, 9(9): 1359-1364. https://doi.org/10.12677/ASS.2020.99190

参考文献

[1] 最高人民法院民事审判第一庭, 编. 民事审判指导与参考[M]. 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2015.
[2] 王泽鉴. 债法原理[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2013.
[3] 人民法院出版社法规编辑中心, 编. 建设工程施工合同司法解释及司法观点全编[M]. 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2019.
[4] 邬砚. 实际施工人向发包人追索工程款的权利解析[J]. 人民司法, 2013(9): 40-43.
[5] 王利明. 论合同的相对性[J]. 中国法学, 1996(4): 63-73.
[6] 袁明圣. 司法解释“立法化”现象探微[J]. 法商研究, 2003(2): 3-12.
[7] 薛军. 民法典编纂如何对待司法解释[J]. 中国法律评论, 2015(4): 48-52.