商事交易中表见代理的认定——以顾某某案为视角

The Identification of the Apparent Agent in Commercial Transactions—Taking the Case of Gu XX as the Perspective

摘要: 随着社会各方面的迅速发展，尤其是经济的方面，给司法实践带来极大的挑战。司法实践中对表见代理的认定标准仍然存在不同的声音。涉及表见代理的案件数量也与日俱增，这类案件类型广泛、纷繁复杂、证据形式种类多样，但是在司法实践中对于表见代理的认定效果却不如人意，存在认识差异化，理解片面化，把握标准多重化。出现同案不同判现象，导致法律适用混乱。因此，本文以一起典型案例为研究视角，结合一二审判决理由，判决结果的出入，寻找其中对于表见代理的理解适用偏差，提出相应的启示建议。本案中对于表见代理的适用，出现对表见代理的构成要件理解浮于表面，没有厘清构成要件之间的因果关系，错将仅有名头没有实质关联的合同作为表见代理的认定证据，进而一审判决构成表见代理。因此笔者厘清表见代理的构成要件，结合学界观点，司法解释等论证表见代理构成要件的核心要点，提出立法和司法的完善建议。

Abstract: The rapid development of all aspects of society, especially the economic aspect, brings great challenges to judicial practice. In judicial practice, there are still different voices in the identification standards of apparent agency. The number of cases involving apparent agents is also increasing day by day. Such cases are extensive, complicated, and have various forms of evidence. However, in judicial practice, the identification effect of apparent agents is not satisfactory, with differentiated understanding, one-sided understanding, and multiple standards. The phenomenon of different judgments in the same case leads to confusion in the application of the law. Therefore, this paper takes a typical case as the research perspective, combined with the judgment reasons of the first and second trials and the judgment results, looks for the understanding deviation of the apparent agent, and puts forward the corresponding enlightenment suggestions. In this case, for the application of the apparent agent, the understanding of the constitutive elements of the apparent agent is superficial, and the causal relationship between the constitutive elements is not clarified. The contract with only a name without substantive connection is wrongly used as the identification evidence of the apparent agent, and then the first instance judgment constitutes the apparent agent. Therefore, the author clarifies the constitutive elements of the agent, combines the core points of the constitutive elements of the demonstration of academic views and judicial interpretation, and puts forward suggestions for the improvement of legislation and justice.