【作者】 熊云波；

【导师】 李毅；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 人口学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 中国的信用卡市场发展迅速,有关的债务纠纷也逐年增加,并引起了广泛的社会争议。信用卡债务相关的民事责任纠纷主要为两类：其一、“持卡人违约债务纠纷”：持卡人没有在合理期限内还款,对使用信用卡发生的利息及费用有争议,认为银行通过格式条款,强迫其承担了过高费用；其二、“第三方欺诈债务纠纷”：由于第三人实施了欺诈行为,采用骗领、冒用等方式而形成不为持卡人所认可的债务,该损失在持卡人、特约商户和发卡行等机构之间的分配存在争议。从上述两种争议与信用卡格式条款之间的关系来看,与持卡人违约债务纠纷相关的格式条款主要是利息与费用计算条款,与第三方欺诈债务纠纷相关的格式条款主要是风险分配条款。因此,本研究将相关格式条款的内容和运行效果为切入点,分析当事人的行为逻辑,讨论法律规定和司法活动的合理性问题。从统计结果来看,法院在审理信用卡债务纠纷时,对银行方提供的相关格式合同认可程度高,审判结果对持卡人相对不利,并引发了广泛的社会争议和理论质疑。笔者发现：其一,在两种类型的债务纠纷审理中,都出现了否定相关格式条款的情况,否定的理由并不一致；其二,第三方欺诈债务纠纷审理中的否定情况要多于持卡人违约债务纠纷；其三,在持卡人违约债务纠纷中,银行对欠款额度不同的客户采取了差异化的政策,间接导致欠款额度小的客户面临较高的偿还比例。其四,相同的理由,如公平原则和优势风险控制原则,既被有的法院用于认可格式条款的合理性,也被有的法院用于否定格式条款的合理性,说明法院对格式条款的定性标准存在内部冲突。本研究对来自27个城市的370个案例进行了个案分析和统计分析。以法院审理对格式条款的认可与否定为主线,系统性的分析相关格式条款的严苛性与正当性；法院对格式条款的认可情况、认可的后果和认可的理由；对格式条款的否定情况、否定的后果和否定的理由。经过实证分析,笔者发现：其一、法院对格式条款的处理存在“左右为难”的情况,司法手段在调整信用卡债务纠纷时具有局限性；其二、受信息不对称、逆向选择、道德风险和机会主义等因素的约束,格式条款的内容和执行既有严苛性的一面,也有正当性的一面,增加了法院的决策难度；其三,现实中既存在维护格式条款效力的因素,也存在制约或否定格式条款效力的因素,对格式条款的认可与否定选择受到这两类因素的双重影响。当支持性因素的影响强度高于否定性因素时,法院会倾向于认可格式条款,反之则反是。本研究在厘清既有研究成果的基础上,采用实证分析的方法,通过收集大量案例进行统计和比对,发现特例；总结归纳了法院的审判理由,并进行中外的横向对比，讨论审判的合理性。此外,本文综合运用了法学、经济学和社会学的相关理论和方法对细节问题进行解释和研究。在整个研究结构的安排上,本文以导论为开头。综述了既有的研究路径、研究视角、研究方法和研究成果,阐述了本研究的背景、动机、问题、意义、方法和创新等。本研究的主要目的是以信用卡债务相关的格式条款为主线,通过系统性的分析法院在审理信用卡债务纠纷时,对格式条款的效力认定情况,全面客观的解释信用卡债务相关格式条款的形成原因与运行效果。第一章分析格式条款的具体内容。该部分从债务纠纷相关格式条款的形成、内容、争议和变化四个方面进行分析。从内容安排和执行效果两方面讨论了格式条款的严苛性,从事实依据和法律依据两方面讨论了格式条款的正当性,形成了如下观点：其一、中国的信用卡市场是一个集中度高的非完全竞争性市场,五大国有银行占据了市场主导地位,并且其主要高管与监管机构主要领导之间存在交叉任职情况,这种背景可能有利于银行方制定并执行对其相对有利的格式条款。其二、格式条款的提供方尽管有强化格式条款严苛性的动机,但这种动机受到逆向选择和市场竞争的约束,有序的竞争性市场结构能够降低格式条款的严苛性,而有序市场的基础是消费者对个人信用的积极维护与发卡机构之间的有效竞争。其三、中国信用卡行业的信用风险和欺诈风险都比较低,银行因此承受的损失比较低,银行的低损失与持卡人的高责任比例形成强烈对比。其四、格式条款对法律的遵从度高,由于法律规范的变化,格式条款的严苛性在近年呈下降趋势,但这种降低也有银行方的主动行为,并还受到技术因素的影响。第二章对信用卡格式条款的效力问题进行了理论探讨。从信用卡格式条款限制相对人的选择权出发,分析了公权力对信用卡格式合约的限制方式、限制过程和限制后果。发现信用卡合约相对普通商事合约有更多的复杂性,银行方提供的格式条款是一个分层结构,申领人接受格式条款的过程中存在机会主义倾向,预期将来的用卡行为处于对其有利的格式条款范围,概括接受了全部合约内容。为了限制格式条款提供方的行为,公权力主要采取立法控制、行政控制和司法控制三种方式对格式条款进行限制。其中立法控制为其他监控确立了标准,是其他控制的基础。控制的后果是格式条款出现三种不同的效力形态：有效、可变更或者撤销、无效。通过文献综述发现,学者们对信用卡法律规范的内容和冲突存在争议；并且中国关于格式条款效力认定的规定原则性强,适用性弱,存在规范弱化的现象。第三章实证分析法院审理对格式条款的认可情况。案例统计发现：在持卡人债务纠纷案中,从终审结果来看,法院对利息与费用计算条款的认可度高。在收集到的300个案例中,法院均支持了银行的主张,认定了银行方提供的格式条款的有效性(有四个案例的一审出现了明确否定,但在二审中被改判：一个案件出现了模糊否定,但判决结果依然支持银行的主张)。在第三方欺诈债务纠纷类案件中,法院对风险分配条款的认可度也相当高,在收集到的70个案例中,有61个案件银行方通过主张事前约定之风险分配条款的有效性,免除了责任。法院在处理纠纷的过程中,对格式条款适用的主要是严格责任原则,较少适用过错责任原则。以收集到的相应案例为基数进行统计,在300个第三人违约债务纠纷案中,认可利息与费用计算条款(以下简称“利费条款”)的后果是持卡人被判决偿还的欠款额是其所欠本金的1.98倍(平均值),并且银行还对不同欠款额度的客户采取差异策略,导致欠款额度较小的客户将承担更多倍的还款责任；在收集到的70个第三方欺诈债务纠纷案中,认可风险分配条款(以下简称“风控条款”)的后果是持卡人承担责任的概率为91.43%,承担全责的概率是55.71%,承担的责任总权重比例为72.71%；特约商户承担责任的概率是32.86%,承担全责的概率是0%，承担的责任总权重比例为16.71%；银行承担责任的概率是12.86%,承担全责的概率是8.57%,承担的责任总权重比例为10.57%。上述数据表明当前格式条款的执行效果是持卡人承担的责任最重,银行最次。这一结论也与近几年银行信用卡贷款的损失率数据一致。但如果责任是由多方承担,持卡人承担一半以上责任的概率是32%,说明一旦对格式条款进行了否定或规避,持卡人的地位就会有很大的改进。法院对格式条款的认可反映出了立法不足、选择性适用法律、归责理由冲突等问题。此外,本分还从控制逆向选择与道德风险,维护非纠纷持卡人利益的角度,讨论了法院认可格式条款的合理性问题。第四章分析法院审理对格式条款的否定情况。在持卡人违约债务纠纷中,收集的300个案例中只有5个案件审理出现了对格式条款的否定情况,否定的概率为1.67%；在第三方欺诈债务纠纷案例中,收集的70个案例只有9个案例没有根据格式条款的免责约定而免除银行的责任,否定的概率是12.86%。对风险分配条款出现较多否定情形的一个重要原因是：在该类纠纷中,法院引用了过错责任原则,根据过错来判断当事人是否承担责任,没有严格依照合同约定,对合同的相对性原则进行了一定的突破；同时由于法律也规定了银行的安全保障义务,为法院裁判提供了新的依据,扩大了法院的的选择空间。两种纠纷中当事人之间的法律关系结构与收益结构存在差异,对法院的选择会产生不同影响。通过与其他司法体系对比,我们可以发现许多国家和地区都出现了对银行格式条款进行限制和否定的情况,它主要有两种模式：一是制定法规直接限制和否定；二是引用基本法律原则进行否定；或者二种兼用。第五章从一个较宽的视角讨论格式条款的控制问题。首先分析了维护格式条款正当性,支撑格式条款的效力的基础性因素；其次讨论了限制格式条款内容,否定格式条款效力的因素；最后在结合二者的基础上,提出格式条款的控制策略。其中,维护格式条款正当性的具体因素包括：格式条款内容安排符合信用卡债务风险的特点；格式条款的遵从法律的规定；格式条款的法律规定具有合理性。制约格式条款效力的因素主要包括网络化的交易结构、社会化的交易关系与合同的相对性原则之间的冲突；发卡机构的理性与持卡人的非理性之间的冲突；当事人之间的信息不对称、信息传导和显示的模糊与责任分配量化需求之间的冲突。无论是对格式条款进行认可还是否定,法院审理信用卡债务纠纷都会同时受到上述两类因素的影响和制约,通过改变约束条件或者创造条件,不断提高一致性因素的强度,降低冲突性因素的强度,持卡人对格式条款的可接受性就会提高,法院对格式条款的认可程度也会提高；反之则反是。本文分析发卡行提供的格式条款的效力问题。主要目标不是为了讨论法院该保护谁,该如何保护的问题。其一,通过纵向梳理格式条款的内容,格式条款的变化,法院对格式条款的处理方法、处理逻辑与处理后果,本文试图发现法院在审理同类案件时存在的争议与分歧,并通过分析争议与分歧的具体内容,界定出现分歧的法律原因和事实原因。其二,通过横向对比其他国家或地区的法律规范和案件审理情况,本文试图界定中外之间的背景差异与处理异同。本文首先解释了格式条款的内容安排逻辑；其次解释了法院认可格式条款的主要原因；再次解释了法院对格式条款进行规避或否定的理由；最后总结出约束当事人选择及法院选择的主要因素。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the rapid development of China’s credit card market, debt disputes also increased year by year, and cause a wide range of social controversy. Civil liability disputes of credit card debt can be divided into two categories:First, the cardholder defaulted debt dispute:the cardholder’repayment is not within a reasonable period, interest and fees on the use of credit cards is controversial, and repute that the bank force them to bear the high costs by format terms; Second, third-party fraud debt disputes:a third person take fraud, and form debt that are not cheat recognized by the cardholder, the loss distribution between cardholders, merchants and issuing banks and other institutions are in dispute. The disputes have a relationship with the standard terms:related to the cardholder defaulted debt disputes is the terms of the interest and expenses; related to the fraudulent debt dispute with a third party is the terms of the allocation of risk. Therefore, this study will take the format terms’content and operating results as the starting point, to analysis parties logic of the conduct, discuss the reasonable question of the law and judicial activities.In the trial of credit card debt disputes, court give a high degree of recognition to contract that are provided by the bank, let the outcome is unfavorable to cardholders,which cause a social controversy and theoretical questioned. I found:First, the two types of debt disputes all appeared negate the standard terms,but the reason is not consistent; Second, third-party fraud debt disputes have more denials than the defaulted debt disputes; Third, in the cardholder defaulted debt disputes, bank arrears amount of different customers to take a differentiated policy, indirectly led to the customers with small amount of arrears face a higher proportion of repayment. Fourth, the same reasons, such as the principle of fairness and advantages of risk control principles, are used to prove the terms’reasonable by some court, and also used to negate the reasonableness of the terms by some other courts, this phenomenon explanate the internal criteria conflict between courts.This study Implement case analysis and statistical analysis on370cases from27cities. The court’recognition or negation of the standard terms is the main line, and with a systematic analysis on the harsh and legitimacy of format terms; Court’attitude on standard, the consequences and reasons of approved or negation. After the analysis, the author found:First, the court be in a "dilemma" situation on handling the standard terms, judicial means have limitations on adjust the credit card debt disputes; Second, with the bound of asymmetric information, adverse selection, moral hazard and opportunistic and other factors, the content and implementation of standard terms both have a harsh side and legitimacy, increase the difficulty of choice; Third, there were factors that maintain the effectiveness of the standard terms in reality, there were also constraints or negative factors of the effectiveness of the standard terms, the recognition and negative selection standard of terms face the double impact of these two types of factors. When the supportive factors strength higher than the negative factors, the court will tend to approve the terms, and vice versa anti. This study take the empirical analysis method, firstly to clarify the existing research results,secondly statistics and contrast the collecting cases,and found the special case; thirdly summed up the reasons for the judgment of the Court, and lateral comparative analysis the Chinese and foreign’situation, to discuss the trial reasonable. In addition, this research have a integrated use of the theories and methods of law, economics and sociology to explain the details.In the structural arrangements of the entire study, this study is begin with a introduction. Theis part overview the existing research path, research perspective, research methods and research results, explain the research background, motivation, problem, significance, methods and innovation. The main purpose of this study is based on standard terms related to credit card debt dispute, by a systematic analysis of the court’ attitude in the trial of credit card debt disputes and the effectiveness of the standard terms, to achieve a comprehensive and objective explanation for the contents arrangement and operating results of the standard terms relataed to the credit card debt disputes.The first chapter analysis the specific content of the standard terms. This analysis include f formation, content, controversy and change of the standard terms. This part on one side discussed the stringent of format terms from content arrangements and perform effct, on other side discussed the legitimacy of the terms of the format terms from the factual and legal basis, and formed the view that:Firstly, China’s credit card market is a centralized and imperfect competitive market, five state-owned banks occupy a dominant market position, and there is a cross-representation between its executives with the principal leaders of regulate agency, this background may be conducive to the bank side to develop and implement their relatively favorable format terms. Secondly, Despite the provider have the motivation to enhance the harsh degree of format terms,but this tendency are bounded by adverse selection and competition in the market, orderly competitive market structure can reduce the harsh degree of format terms, and the basis of orderly market is the consumers’actively safeguard for personal credit and effective competition between card issuers. Thirdly, the credit card industry credit risk and fraud risk is relatively low, the bank is therefore exposed to relatively low loss, which become a stark contrast between low loss of the bank and the high proportion of responsibility of cardholder. Forthly, Standard terms comply with the law, the stringent have a downward trend in recent years due to the change of the legal norms, this reduction is not only active behavior of the banking side, and also subject to technical factors.Chapter Ⅱ theoretically discusses the question of the validity of the format terms of the credit card. The format terms of the credit card limit the option of the relative departure,the public authority part also have a restriction on standart contract, this part analysis the method, process and consequences of restriction,and found that the credit card agreements are more complexity than relatively common and commercial contracts, the terms provided by bank is a hierarchical structure, Applicant have a opportunistic tendency, expected the future card behavior is in its favor terms of format range, generally accepted all the terms of the contract. In order to limit provider’s behavior, the public authority mainly take legislative control, administrative control and judicial control. Legislative control defined standards for the other monitoring, is the basis for the other control. The format terms form three different effectiveness morphology after the control:effective, can be changed or revoked, invalid. Through the literature review, we can found the scholars controversial about the legal norms’content about the standard terms of credit card; and china’ regulation rules on standard terms of credit card is principled,and difficult to apply, which led to the weakness of specification.Chapter III empirical analysis court recognition of the standard terms. The court take a high degree of recognition on the terms about the interest and costs in the cardholder debt dispute. This research collected300cases, the court all supported the claims of the bank, identified the terms’ effectiveness (there are rejection in four cases’first instance, but commuted in the second instance; one case appears a fuzzy negative, but the verdict is still support the idea of the bank). In the case of third-party fraud debt disputes, this research collected70cases,the court also approved the most terms about the risk allocation, and bank eliminated the responsibility by asserting the validity of the advanced terms about the risk allocation in61cases. In the process of dealing with disputes, the courts mainly apply the principle of strict liability, less the principle of fault liability, in the collected300third party defaulted debt disputes, the consequences of approved the terms of the interest and expenses is that arrears amount achieve the1.98times (average) of principal amount, and banks also take different policies for different amount of arrears customers, resulting in a smaller amount of arrears customers will bear more times repayment obligations; in collected70third-party fraud debt disputes, the consequences of recognized the risk allocation terms is that the cardholder have the probability of91.43%to liable, the probability of55.71%to bear full responsibility, and total weight proportion of responsibilities is72.71%; merchants have the probability is32.86%to bear the responsibility, the probability of0%to assume full responsibility, and total weight proportion of responsibilities is16.71%; banks have the probability of12.86%to bear the responsibility, the probability of8.57%to bear full responsibility, total weight proportion of responsibilities is10.57%. The above data indicate that the current result about the implementation of the format provisions is that the cardholder bear the heaviest responsibility, bank undertake the most light responsibility.. This conclusion is also consistent with the loss rate data of credit card loan in recent years. If the responsibility is borne by multiple parties, the probability of cardholder assumes more than half responsibility is32%, which indicated that once appear a negative or circumvent for the format terms, the status of the cardholder will have a great improvement. Court approval of the standard terms reflect a lack of legislation, selective applicable law, the conflict of attributable reasons,and other problems. This part also discussed the rationality of the court approved the forma termst from three angles of control adverse selection, moral hazard, protect the non-disputes cardholder’interest.The Chapter IV analyzes the Court negation of the standard terms.In the cardholder defaulted debt disputes, this study collected300cases, but negation only appear in five cases, the probability of negative is1.67%; in the case of third-party fraud debt disputes, this study collected70cases, and negation only appear in nine cases,the probability of negative is12.86%. An important reason for occur more negative situation in terms of the risk allocation is in such disputes, the court cited the principle of fault liability, to determine whether the parties responsible for fault, not strictly in accordance with the contract, there is a small breakthrough to the privity of contract’ principle; Since the law also provides the safety and security obligations of the bank at the same time, which provide a new basis for the court’verdict, and expanding the chioce space of the Court. The legal relationship and income structure of the parties is different in the two disputes, which have the different effects on the choice of the court. By comparison with other judicial systems, we can found limitation and negation on bank’format terms appeared in many countries and regions.it mainly have two modes:one is developing regulations to restrict and deny; the other is refering the basic legal principles to deny; or combined use.Chapter V discuss the terms of format control problem from a wider perspective. This part firstly analyzed the maintenance of the standard terms legitimacy, and the fundamental factors that support the the effectiveness of the standard terms; Secondly, discussed the factors that restrict the content of the terms and negate the effectiveness of the standard terms; Finally, comprehensived the control strategy. This specific factors maintains the legitimacy of the standard terms:the consistency of credit card debt risk characteristics and the arrangement of format terms; the standard terms comply with the law; the reasonableness of the law concern the standard terms.This factors restrict the effectiveness of standard terms:the conflict between the the network structure of transaction, social trading relationship and the the principle of privity of contract; conflict between the rational card issuer and irrational cardholder; conflict between the parties’ information asymmetry, information transmission, display fuzzy and the need for quantify responsibilities. Whether the approve or negation for format terms, court ’judgement will be by these two types factors at the same time. By changing the constraints or to create the conditions, and continuously improve the strength of the consistency factor, reduce the intensity of the conflict factors, cardholder will improve the acceptability on the format terms, and the court will also increase recognition of it; otherwise anti.This paper analyzes the format terms’validity that provided by the bank.the goal is not primarily discuss the court should protect which one, and how to protect,But through the longitudinal comb the content, changes of format terms, the method, logic and concequences of court judgement on standard terms, we can found there were disputes and disagreements in hearing of similar cases, and by taking a detailed comparison on these disputes and disagreements,we can found the legal reasons and factual reasons for this. Horizontal contrast legal norms and the case of other countries or regions, we can defined the similarities and differences between Chinese and foreign. First, explain the logic of the standard terms of the arrangement of contents; Second, explain the main reasons of the court approved the format terms; Third, explain the reasons for negative the format terms; Fourth, summe up the main factors that constrain the choice of parties and court.更多还原