论建筑工程领域下“阴阳合同”的效力认定——兼议《招标投标法》第46条

On the Validity of “Yin-Yang Contract” in the Field of Construction Engineering—Discussing Article 46 of the Tendering and Bidding Law

摘要: “阴阳合同”的现象在建筑工程领域屡见不鲜，屡禁不止，已经成为国家经济、文化乃至政治发展的“毒瘤”。然司法实践中，法院对于“阴阳合同”的效力认定举棋不定，甚至出现“同案不同判”的司法乱象，即使最新出台的司法解释(一)第一条第三项对“阴阳合同”效力认定给出了裁判规则，但其涵摄内容有限，并未从根本上发挥定纷止争的功能。此外，《招标投标法》第46条的性质和该条中实质性背离的认定仍然不够明确，亟待解决。基于此，文章以“阴阳合同”的成因为问题导向，明确第46条的性质认定，明晰实质性背离的正向认定和反向排除，最后以“阴阳合同”成立时间为依据，将建筑工程领域下“阴阳合同”划分为“先阴后阳”和“先阳后阴”两种类型，对各自类型下的合同效力给出认定，以推动司法裁判统一和维护司法公正之良象。

Abstract: The phenomenon of “yin-yang contract” is common in the field of construction engineering, and it has become a “cancer” in the national economic, cultural and even political development. However, in judicial practice, the court is uncertain about the validity determination of “yin-yang contract”, and even appears the judicial chaos of “different judgments in the same case”. Even though the third item of Article 1 of the latest judicial interpretation (I) gives the judgment rules for the validity determination of “yin-yang contract”, its content is limited, and it does not fundamentally play the function of settling disputes. In addition, the nature of Article 46 of the Tendering and Bidding Law and the identification of material deviation in that article are still unclear and need to be resolved. Based on this, this paper focuses on the cause of “yin-yang contract”, clarifies the identification of the nature of Article 46, and clarifies the positive identification and reverses exclusion of substantive deviation. Finally, based on the establishment time of “yin-yang contract”, the “yin-yang contract” in the field of construction engineering is divided into two types: “first Yin and then Yang” and “first Yang and then Yin”, and the validity of the contract under each type is confirmed. To promote the unity of judicial adjudication and safeguard the good image of judicial justice.