股权分期付款买卖合同的解除制度探讨.docVIP

精品文档，助力人生，欢迎关注小编！ 股权分期付款买卖合同的解除制度探讨 安悦齐 [摘 要]《合同法》分期买卖的解除权制度一直在学界颇具争议，最高院公布的指导案例67号在裁判的适用上提供了统一的标尺，即认定股权作为分期买卖的标的，因性质上的特殊性不适用于《合同法》167条。在体系解释上，第167条的解除权并非独立的请求权，其适用必然要与94条第3项的催告要件相结合，才能构成完整的请求权基础。本案破题的核心在于是否催告，而非在于股权标的除外。对此，2020年颁布的《民法典》第634条证实了这一观点，对于分期付款合同解除权增加了“催告”这一要件，弥补了法律的漏洞。 [关键词]分期付款;合同法167条;指导案例67号;合同解除 [中图分类号] D913 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 2095-3283（2020）11-0038-06 Abstract： The system of the right to cancel installments has always been quite controversial in the academic world. Guiding Case No. 67 published by the Supreme Court provides a unified scale in the application of the referee， that is， if the equity is deemed to be the target of installments， the particularity of the nature does not apply to Article 167 of the Contract Law. However， the reasoning of this referee deviates from the meaning of the text and is oriented by results， which is the reason for the reversal of logical reasoning. Under the premise of specific regulations， the principle of good faith is invoked， and there is a suspicion of escape from general terms. In addition， in terms of system interpretation， the right of cancellation of Article 167 is not an independent claim， and its application must be combined with the reminder requirements of Article 94， Item 3， in order to form a complete basis for claim. Therefore， the core of solving the problem in this case is whether to urge， not to exclude the equity subject matter. In this regard， Article 634 of the Civil Code promulgated in 2020 confirms the authors point of view， adding the requirement of urgent to the right to terminate the installment contract to make up for the loopholes in the law. Key Words： Installment Payment; Article 167 of the Contract Law; Guiding Case No. 67; Termination of the Contract 一、案情简介与裁判要旨 （一）案情简介 原告汤某与被告周某签订两份分期付款转让股权的协议。双方约定，将总价款710万元分四期付清。协议签订后，汤某如约支付了第一期股权转让款，其后对于第二期转让款汤某逾期两个月之久。因此周某于两个月之后，以根本违约作为解除原因，并以公证方式行使了单方解除权。汤某在收到周某的《解除协议的通知》之后，立刻向周某履行了逾期欠缴的款项，并按照约定