【作者】 黄忠；

【导师】 李开国；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 无效法律行为是一个日久弥新的论题,并且是一个关系私人自治之民法精神命运的重大基础理论问题。本文以无效法律行为制度为研究对象,试图通过逻辑分析、比较法分析、历史分析、法哲学分析等方法全面、系统阐释无效法律行为的概念、其与相关概念的关系、无效法律行为的原因和判定以及法律行为无效后的缓和与后果处理等问题,并为“民法典”建立科学的无效法律行为制度及法官合理判定无效法律行为提出建议。除引言和结论外,正文共九章,计四十余万言,在结构上可分为四个部分。第一部分(第一章)属于对无效法律行为概念的澄清与辨析。本文认为,摒弃无效法律行为的术语,改采无效民事行为、无效民事法律行为的做法在体系、逻辑和价值上殊值疑问,故我国民法应当恢复无效法律行为的表述。无效法律行为有广义与狭义之分,本文所关注的是狭义的无效。就狭义无效的内涵而言,两大法系存在认识角度的差异。本文综合两大法系的认识,提出无效法律行为是指不得通过国家强制来实现当事人预设法律效果的情形。考虑到无效法律行为与违法行为间的近似性,故本文又对这两个概念作了辨析。文章认为,违法行为属事实行为,无效法律行为则属法律行为。事实行为存在合法、违法的二元判断,其结论是合法、违法必居其一;但就法律行为而言,就不能只做合法与违法的简单判断,其后果将是多元的,包括了无效、可撤销、效力待定及有效。此外,本章还就法律行为的无效与法律行为的不成立、法律行为的可撤销及效力待定进行了比较,以厘定无效法律行为的外延。文章认为,在现代民法中,法律行为的不成立只能坚持设权的法效意思的不存在为判断标准,因此,法律行为的成立问题主要是一个当事人自由意志的确定问题。而法律行为的无效所针对的却是一个国家意志的贯彻与平衡问题。自立法论而言,具体法律行为的不成立是无法作一般化的规定的,而法律行为的无效问题则可以作一般性的规范。之所以有此区别是因为在私法领域,自由是无法穷尽的,而对自由的限制却必须是能够明确的(有限的)。而无效、可撤销和效力待定间的区别关键在于其损害的法益的不同:法律行为无效是因其损害了社会公共利益;而法律行为可撤销是因其侵犯了当事人的私人利益;法律行为效力待定则是因其损害了特定第三人的利益。第二部分包括第二至七章,旨在揭示无效法律行为的原因,并提出无效法律行为的具体判定思路。文章首先就无效法律行为(合同)制度展开了比较法的考察。在大陆法系的研究上,文章选取德、日两国为例进行研究,指出在德、日两国对于无效法律行为的判定都自觉地在运用利益衡量的方法。并且,新近的日本民法学说还将违法问题统摄于违反公序良俗的判断中。这一转变对于克服违法即无效的机械认识,授权法官依个案的具体情形作不同处理提供了条件,值得借鉴。在就普通法的考察上,文章所针对的乃是不法合同(交易)。在普通法上,当合同被认定为不法时就会出现两个后果:不得强制和不予干预。但因严格适用一般原则会导致过于严厉的后果,故在实践中又出现了一系列的针对不得强制、不予干预之一般原则的例外情形。然而,由于社会的变迁,对于不法合同的传统处理规则出现了不合目的性,并造成了显失公平和个案间的不一致等不利后果,因此,在普通法上主张改革的声音渐起。文章通过对1970年新西兰的《不法合同法》以及南澳大利亚、加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚、加拿大安大略、英国和新加坡等国和地区的法律改革委员会的相关法律报告的考察指出,在处理不法合同的问题上,普通法同样倾向于授予法官以自由裁量权,并且此点也已为英美国家的许多法院所践行。此外,文章还就美国《第二次合同法重述》中的违反公共政策的合同的效力论作了展开,其结论与上述比较法的考察相似。接着,文章回到我国现行民事立法,围绕《民法通则》第58条和《合同法》第52条的规定逐项检讨现行法就无效法律行为规定的不合理性。文章指出《民法通则》和《合同法》上的列举式规定,似乎让我们在对无效法律行为(合同)的认定上更为具体了,但现行法的这一“作用”实际上却是虚幻,甚至有害的。因为无论是“以欺诈、胁迫的手段或者是恶意串通,损害国家利益”,抑或是“以合法行为掩盖非法目的”,其法律行为之所以无效绝非是因为“以欺诈、胁迫的手段或者是恶意串通”和“掩盖”的形式,而应是其违反了社会公共利益的实质。而单纯的违法或不合法定形式本身也不会必然导致无效。因此,现行法舍本求末,将“损害社会公共利益”的本质作形式上的无谓分解,“看起来”是对“损害社会公共利益无效”这一抽象原则予以了具体化,但于司法实践却无实益。文章直言,“损害社会公共利益”的具体方式是无法穷尽的,因此立法对此进行列举无疑会陷入被动,并且也根本无法真正触及无效法律行为的本质,从而为无效法律行为的判定提供可行思路。所以,我们必须从热衷于列举违反社会公共利益(包括违法)的具体方式,以求表面上的具体化之“不归路”上觉悟过来,重新回到“损害社会公共利益无效”的一元论立场。随后,文章即从立法论角度论证无效法律行为的基本原理。文章认为,导致法律行为无效的基本理由只能是基于对公共利益的维护。如果法律行为侵犯了纯粹的私人利益则其后果可能是效力待定或者是可撤销,而非无效。本文所谓的公共利益的渊源包含两个方面:一是法律;二是公序良俗,这是非法律化的“强制规范”。其中,前者可视为是国家利益的反映,具有相对客观性;后者可视为是社会利益的体现,具有较大的主观性。由于社会公共利益概念本身的不确定性,而通过类型化的方法将其予以具体化办存在诸多问题,因此价值补充的方法就在所难免。文章经由法、德、日等国的比较法考察也表明,基于宪法框架去确定公共利益的含义至少在理论构成上应是可行的。在法律行为无效的判定上,确定社会公共利益本身是一回事,而基于社会公共利益去判定法律行为的无效则又是另一回事。考虑到公共利益本身的确定问题更多地是一个公法(政治)问题,因此作为私法研究来说,本文更加关注后一问题。在基于社会公共利益而判定法律行为无效的过程中,文章引入了利益衡量的思路。文章还提出,应通过比例原则来指导法律行为无效判定中的利益衡量。详言之,就是要求法官在无效法律行为的判断中必须对以下因素予以考虑:法律行为本身的恶劣性;法律行为与社会公共利益的关联性;社会公共利益的重要性;法律行为无效的必要性;法律行为无效的有效性;法律行为无效的均衡性。由于无效法律行为的判定必然要涉及价值判断的问题,因此本文的阐释仍然是原则性的,或者说本文所能做的只能是通过阐释理论的指引来剔除不必要的裁量,并且寻求有效的控制机制,最大限度地让“法律终止的地方”就是“个案正义开始”的时候。基于最大限度地维护“私人自治”的认识,文章第三部分(第八章)专门论及了无效法律行为的缓和问题。文章指出,之所以要在法律行为被判定为无效后仍对其予以缓和,其首要目的在于维持私人自治的民法精神。此外,无效制度的不合目的性、偏执性、无效率性以及基本权利的底线捍卫也都共同证立了对无效法律行为予以缓和的正当性。实际上,考察法律行为制度的沿革,我们不难发现,法律行为、无效法律行为以及无效法律行为的缓和制度总是作为共时性的制度存在于绵延不断的私法发展史上的。而在自由之思想、自由之行动尚未成风,不当干预仍然存在的国情下,我们就更有必要去充分发展出一套无效法律行为的缓和技术,以扣除国情因素在对无效法律行为的判定上所产生的不当。基于此,文章随后就逐一对法律行为部分无效的缓和规则、无效法律行为之转换规则、法律行为的相对无效、法律行为的有效推定、法律行为的合法(有效)解释等具体缓和技术展开阐释,以为最大限度地维护法律行为的效力提供技术支撑。第四部分(第九章)主要是就无效法律行为所引发的私法后果的评析。文章围绕《民法通则》第61条的规定,重点从返还财产、损害赔偿及没收(追缴)财产三方面展开。在返还财产问题上,论文就狭义无效(存在不法原因)时是否应准予返还、返还原物的请求权基础、返还财产的范围、返还费用的负担、折价补偿、返还中的风险负担以及不能请求返还时标的物的归属等问题作了详实阐释。在损害赔偿问题上,文章认为,应将当事人在法律行为无效后的赔偿责任定性为信赖责任,并对信赖责任的判断、构成和赔偿范围作了剖析。在没收财产问题上,文章指出,没收财产罚的规定,虽秉承了社会主义国家民事立法的共同做法,且对缓解不法原因给付的逻辑困境,打击和预防不法有一定作用,但究其实质却与处罚法定原则相冲突,将损害当事人及其债权人的利益,同时也与人民法院在民事诉讼中的定位相乖违,在根本上背离了民法的私法本质,并且容易导致对违法行为的反激励后果,故应将其从民事立法中予以除去。通过前述分析,本文在最后为我国“民法典”上的无效法律行为制度提出了系统的立法建议。除此之外,本文还力图在以下六个方面对现有理论予以推进:第一,准确阐发法律行为无效的概念,澄清无效法律行为的术语,系统梳理法律行为无效、不成立、可撤销、效力待定等概念各自的含义及彼此的关系。第二,全面考察比较法上就此问题的做法,归纳比较法上就此问题的基本经验,以为我国的立法和司法提供参照,这其中对英美法的评介为国内所少见,具有相当的价值。第三,深刻检讨我国现行法上就无效法律行为和无效合同之规范的问题所在,直言现行法的详细列举式规定对于无效法律行为的判定并无实益,提出我们应将立法和研究的重心集中到损害社会公共利益的一元无效论上来。第四,基于一元的无效原因论,依据比例原则,对于法律行为无效判定中的利益衡量基准进行了比较细致的归纳,具有相当的实践意义。第五,就法律行为无效后的缓和原因及具体技术展开论证和分析,提出我们不仅应在无效法律行为的判断中要慎重行事,而且即便是在法律行为被判定为无效之后,也应对其予以缓和,以期能最大限度地维护私人自治。第六,如实指出现行法就无效法律行为后果的规定在价值上的不合理性、在体系上的矛盾性,并提出了改进意见。当然,限于个人能力、精力和研究经费的原因,本文在就无效法律行为的实证研究方面未予全面展开,一些调研分析都仍在进行之中;并且本文也主要集中在对无效法律行为的基本原理、基本制度的阐释上,而就具体的法律行为,特别是婚姻、收养等身份行为的无效问题涉及不多。这些遗憾都有待笔者在以后的研究中予以弥补和加强。更多还原

【Abstract】 The nullity of juristic act(legal transaction)is the research object in this paper.We comprehensively and systematically explain the notion of the invalid juristic act,its relationship with the related concepts,the causes and determine of nullity,the treatment of the invalid juristic act and the legal consequences of the invalid juristic act by historical,logical, comparative,and philosophy approach.Besides the introduction and the conclusion,the dissertation consists of nine chapters,approximately 400,000 Chinese characters.This paper may divide into four parts structurally.The first part,namely chapterⅠ,will clarify the notion of the invalid juristic act.The second part including chapterⅡto chapterⅦ,will analyze the causes of nullity and propose the method to determine the nullity of juristic act.Based on the principle of“private autonomy”,chapterⅧwill expound the treatment of the invalid juristic act.The last part,namely chapterⅨ,will discuss the consequences of the invalid juristic act.ChapterⅠexpounds the expression,connotation and denotation of the nullity of juristic act.We should restore the concept of invalid juristic act,and abandon the notions of invalid civil behaviors,invalid civil legal behaviors and illegal behaviors.Invalid juristic act consists of a broad sense and a narrow sense.This Article concerns the narrow sense of invalid juristic act.In two Legal Systems,there exist differences about the notion of the nullity in perspective.In the common law system,the void mean unenforceable.In the continental law system,the void mean the wish of parts is unable to realize.From the perspective of explanatory strength,the first understanding is more appropriate.But the unenforceable act includes not only nullity.So the proper opinion should be combining the unenforceable and unrealized,that is,nullity of juristic act(contract)is unable to realize the wish of parts through enforceable way from the courts.In modem civil law,the establishment of juristic act means the discovery of free will from the parts.Based on the idea of“private autonomy”,the statutes should not prescribe the requirements of establishment and validity of juristic act,but the situation of invalid juristic act.A voidable juristic act is one where one or more parties have the power to avoid the legal relations created by the juristic act,or by ratification of the juristic act to extinguish the power of avoidance.So the cause of voidable juristic act is the untrue and not voluntary of meaning expression of the parties.The juristic act with pending validity refers to the pending state of both the validity or invalidity of contract,and it needs a third party who has the right of formation to subsequently endorse or refuse.The juristic act is pending validity(undecided validity)due to the damaging to the specific interests of a third person.The nullity of civil juristic act actually reflects the relationship between private rights and public power,or between civil society and political state.The reason of the nullity is the juristic act undermined the social and public interests.ChapterⅡstudies the nullity of juristic act in continental law system including the German and Japan.In German,the System of the nullity displays the“dual”pattern.Article 134 of the German Civil Code(B(u|¨)rgerliches Gesetzbuch)stipulates that“A juristic act which violates a statutory prohibition is void,unless a contrary intention appears from the statute.”Article 138 states that“A juristic act which offends good morals is void.”“statute”in Article 134 refers to a broad mean,including civil law,administrative regulations,autonomous regulations, European Union law,as well as norms of customary law.Generally speaking,the function of Article 134 is to authorize judges to weigh the interest of statutory prohibition,such as life, health,environment,property,the overall economic order,against the benefits of juristic act, such as the freedom of contract and so on.The German Civil Code can not define the meaning of good morals(Guten Sitten Verst(o|¨)βt).So Article 134 also authorize judges to determine the meaning of the good morals based on“dominant morality”which will introduce the basic ethical values in German Constitution(Grundgesetz f(u|¨)r die Bundesrepublik Deutschland)to civil law in fact.But this is not to say that any disregard of the basic ethical values in German Constitution will directly constitute a violation of good morals.In other words,Article 134 means the interests balancing under the framework of the Constitution.In Japan,Article 90 of the Civil Code says that“A juristic act which has for its object such matters as are contrary to good morals and other social order shall be null and void.”Article 91 of the Japan Civil Code says that“If the parties to a juristic act have declared an intention which differs from any provisions of Acts or subordinate statutes,which are not concerned with good morals or other social order,such intention shall prevail.”In history, there are a series of theories,including“different sources of regulations”,“comprehensive judgment”,“performance stages”,“public order of economy”,and“obligation of protection of basic rights”,which reflects the deepening of understanding about the relationship between the public and the private.Recently,the legal basis in determining nullity of juristic act focus on the public order and good customs.That is to say illegality is a situation of Article 90.This shift can overcome mechanical idea that illegality must be invalid absolutely,but authorize judges provided for different treatment in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case.ChapterⅢlists the rule and the developing trends of illegal transactions in Anglo-American law system.In Common Law.There are two rules governing the rights of parties to illegal transactions.First,an illegal transaction is unenforceable by action.Second,a court will not, except in exceptional cases,intervene to assist a party to an illegal transaction,even when he seeks to resile from the transaction.The draconian consequences which often ensue from its strict application have led courts to apply it in a restrictive and technical fashion.In addition, a number of exceptions have been formulated which collectively deprive the general rule of much of its force.The exceptions include in pari delicto,non-reliance,severance and so on. Because of social changes,the rules governing illegal transactions is inconsistent with the purpose of the law and causes the unfair treatment in case.In fact,the need for reform of the law governing illegal transactions is generally acknowledged.In 1970 New Zealand formulated the Illegal Contracts Act,and became the first Commonwealth Jurisdiction to enact legislation intended to bring about comprehensive reform of the law relative to illegality in contract.Later,the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia,the Law Reform Commission of Ontario,the Law Reform Committee of South Australia,The Law Commission in England and the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law were agreed that the law relating to illegal contracts was in need of reform.Many judges and academics have argued the necessity for reform.Observing of the above reforms,we can find the trends of governing illegal transactions is to give discretionary power to judges.Restatement of the Law is considered the success summing up about the practice of common law.According to the Second Restatement of the Contracts Law,a promise or other term of an agreement is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if legislation provides that it is unenforceable or the interest in its enforcement is clearly outweighed in the circumstances by a public policy against the enforcement of such terms.The term“legislation”is used here in the broadest sense to include any fixed text enacted by a body with authority to promulgate rules,including not only statutes,but constitutions and local ordinances,as well as administrative regulations issued pursuant to them.It also encompasses foreign laws to the extent that they are applicable under conflict of laws rules.In weighing the interest in the enforcement of a term,account is taken of(a)the parties’ justified expectations, (b)any forfeiture that would result if enforcement were denied,and(c)any special public interest in the enforcement of the particular term.In weighing a public policy against enforcement of a term,account is taken of(a)the strength of that policy as manifested by legislation or judicial decisions,(b)the likelihood that a refusal to enforce the term will further that policy,(c)the seriousness of any misconduct involved and the extent to which it was deliberate,and(d)the directness of the connection between that misconduct and the term.ChapterⅣmakes some comments on the related rules about the nullity of juristic act or contracts in China.This chapter starts around Article 58 of General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 52 of Contract Law.There is s wide range of nullity in General Principles of the Civil Law. Article 58 of General Principles of the Civil Law says that“juristic act in the following categories shall be null and void:(a)those performed by a person without capacity for civil conduct;(b)those that according to law may not be independently performed by a person with limited capacity for civil conduct;(c)those performed by a person against his true intentions as a result of cheating,coercion or exploitation of his unfavorable position by the other party;(d)those that performed through malicious collusion are detrimental to the interest of the state,a collective or a third party;(e)those that violate the law or the public interest;(f)economic contracts that violate the state’s mandatory plans;and(g)those that performed under the guise of legitimate acts conceal illegitimate purposes.Compared with General Principles of the Civil Law,Contract Law limits the scope of nullity.Article 52 of Contract Law states that“A contract is invalid in any of the following circumstances:(a)One party induced conclusion of the contract through fraud or duress,thereby harming the interests of the state;(b)The parties colluded in bad faith,thereby harming the interests of the state,the collective or any third party;(c)The parties intended to conceal an illegal purpose under the guise of a legitimate transaction;(d)The contract harms public interests;(e)The contract violates a mandatory provision of any law or administrative regulation.But the requirement in Contract Law is still unreasonable.In fact,the specific provisions in Article 58 of General Principles of the Civil Law and in Article 52 of Contract Law is no beneficial to judicial practice.Fundamentally speaking,the reason why juristic act or contract shall be null and void is it’s harmful to public interests.Moreover,the ways damage to public interests can not be exhausted.So we should come back to the center problem that is the juristic act will void because it’s harmful to public interests.ChapterⅤexpounds the principle of nullity.We believe that the only reason for nullity is that the juristic act damages to public interests.On the one hand,Human’s sociality determines the existence of social and public interests.On the other hand,due to the incomplete rationality of person and the external diseconomies of act,the juristic act by any person according the principle of self-governing will damage to the public interest.In this paper,the so-called public interest includes two sources.The first one is statute,including but not limited to the statutory prohibition in public law especially.The second one is the public policy.The former represents the national interests what is relative objectivity.The latter can be regarded as a manifestation of social benefits what has a certain subjective.The paper emphasized that illegality does not mean the nullity.When juristic act or contract violates the law,we must weigh a public policy against enforcement of juristic act or contract. Accordingly,the question about illegality can include in the weighing a public policy.ChapterⅥdiscusses the implication of public benefits or public policy.The public interests have been regarded as the basic concept to prove the necessity and rationality of nullity.What is pubic interests? How to understand and interpret public interests? In practice, we can understand the pubic interests by lists from the case judgment.However,the summarization base on the judgment will not comprehensive and mutually contradictory.So we should explain the notion about pubic interests.At this time,we should determine the public interest based on the constitution to ensure objectivity and legitimacy of the meaning. In fact,it is a general rule of constitution in mostly countries that limit basic rights,for instance the freedom of the juristic act or contract by public interest.ChapterⅦintroduces the theory of interests balancing to determine the nullity of the juristic act.It is believed that the finding of the public interests is one thing,but the determining the nullity of the juristic act according the public interests is another thing.The later is more important in the research about the civil law.The essence of the balancing is given discretionary power to judge.To ensure the fairness of judgments according the way of the interests balancing,we should work from the following three aspects,that is to establish the principles or benchmarks of the balancing,to set up the proper procedures to ensure the fair,and to improve the quality of judges to purify the judges discretion.The paper focuses on the first aspect.The essence of the nullity is that the country limits the freedom of act of the person which is the basic rights in Constitution.So we should not damage to freedom of act excessively only for the public interests.In this proceeding of weighing,the principle of Proportionality must be applied.In fact,the principle of Proportionality is a significant principle in modern law,whose structure is considered consisting of three subordinate principle,that is,propriety,necessity and proportionality principle in narrow sense.The paper requires that the court to take six factors into account in deciding the nullity of the juristic act.These include:(a)the seriousness of juristic act,(b)the directness of the connection between that juristic act and the public interests,(c)the strength and importance of public interests,(d)the necessity that a refusal to enforce the juristic act,(e)the effectiveness that a refusal to enforce the juristic act will further that public interests,and(f)the proportionality between the freedom of juristic act and the nullity.Certainly,this article’s explanation is a matter of principle.The interests balancing in case still required the wisdom of individual judges.ChapterⅧstudies the theory and ways of the treatment of nullity.for maintaining the private autonomy,we still treat and cure the juristic act after the determining the nullity. Moreover,the system about nullity of the juristic act will be inefficient,in contradiction with the objectives of law,present the deviation,and damage to basic rights.Especially in China, the concept of freedom is not enough,but there are much improper intervention.So this is essential to cure the nullity of the juristic act.The ways of the treatment of nullity include severance,conversion,relative nullity,valid presumption,legal or valid interpretation and so on.The article 60 in General Principles of the Civil Law and the article 56 in Contract Law in China is so simple that can not be applied without the explanation.If a part of a juristic act is void,then the entire juristic act is void, unless it is to be assumed that it would have been undertaken even without the void part, except the testamentary succession and legacy.The fact that“it would have been undertaken even without the void part”is based on the hypothetische Parteiwillen and the public policy. If a part of a juristic act is void,we can maintain the validity of the juristic act by modifiability.The conversion of null and void juristic act has much value:the implementation meaning autonomously,the realization of fair and the benefit,the maintenance of the security in transaction,it also has widely suitable space.The conversion of null and void juristic act include the conversion on law and the conversion on explanation.The conversion of null and void juristic act should meet some conditions:has a null and void juristic act;the null and void juristic act has the special establishment condition and the effective condition;the party has the meaning for the conversion.Our civil legislation should introduce the rule about the conversion of null and void juristic act.Because the civil law in China stipulated the undetermined juristic act and the revocable juristic act,there is no need to adopt the mode of“nullit(?)relative”in France.The mode of relative unwirksamkeit in Germany is in line with the ordinary meaning of“relative”in civil law,but there are contradictions between the“relative unwirksamkeit”and the rule of fake right appearance and faith protection.So we should explore the purpose of legal compulsory standardization,and reconstruct the relative nullity in according with the claimer of invalidity.In other words,a juristic act is relatively null when it violates a rule intended for the protection of private parties.Relative nullity may be invoked only by those persons for whose interest the ground for nullity was established, and may not be declared by the court on its own initiative.ChapterⅨanalyses the consequences of the nullity of juristic act.Article 58 of General Principles of the Civil Law states“After a juristic act has been determined to be null and void or has been rescinded,the party who acquired property as a result of the act shall return it to the party who suffered a loss.The erring party shall compensate the other party for the losses it suffered as a result of the act;if both sides are in error,they shall each bear their proper share of the responsibility.If the two sides have conspired maliciously and performed a civil act that is detrimental to the interests of the state,a collective or a third party,the property that they thus obtained shall be recovered and turned over to the state or the collective,or returned to the third party.”So we will discuss the restitution,the compensation and the forfeiture of property.In the question about the restitution,the paper expounds whether the property should be allowed to return,the basis for right of claim to return,the scope of claim to return,the cost burden of return,discount compensation,the risk burden of return,the ownership of the property when the return is prohibited and so on.The essence of the compensation after the nullity is reliance interest.If a party is excusably ignorant of facts or of legislation of a minor character,of which another party is not excusably ignorant and in the absence of which the promise would be enforceable,the excusable party has a claim for damages for its breach but cannot recover damages for anything that he has done after he learns of the facts or legislation. At the scope of the compensation,this paper argues that reliance interest should include the benefits of direct losses and indirect losses.Last but not least,the paper pointed out that the punishment of confiscating property ought to be abolished from Civil Law.It also puts forward some preliminary suggestions for the relative civil legislation in the conclusion.This show the paper not only analyzes the theory,but also pay attention to the legislative practice.更多还原