法邦网-律师专题

<p style="text-indent:43px;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;line-height:33px"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI Black&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 21px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">合同相对性原则在民间借贷纠纷中的适用与突破</span></span></strong></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">——以（2024）川17民再1号改判案为视角</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">摘要</span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">：本文以四川省三级法院四次审理的民间借贷</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">合同</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">纠纷案件为样本，通过分析一审（</span>2023）川1724民初3522号、二审（2023）川17民终2293号、再审审查（2024）川民申690号及再审（2024）川17民再1号判决的裁判逻辑差异，系统探讨合同相对性原则在司法实践中的适用边界及其例外情形。研究表明，突破合同相对性需严格满足&quot;明示披露—权责分离—合意转换&quot;三重标准，该标准的确立对统一类案裁判尺度具有重要指导意义。</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">关键词</span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">：合同相对性；名义借款人；民间借贷；司法裁判标准</span></p><h2 style="margin-top:13px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:13px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">一、案情演进与裁判分歧</span></strong></h2><h3 style="margin-top:13px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（一）基本事实与争议焦点</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">2016年，出借人</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">甲</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与借款人</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">签订《借款借条》，约定借款</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">500</span><span style="font-family:宋体">万</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">元用于某工程项目资金周转。值得注意的是，该笔借款中的</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">450</span><span style="font-family:宋体">万</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">元通过银行转账方式支付至</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">指定的</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">账户（</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">存在亲属关系），剩余</span>5万元以现金形式直接交付</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">。后因债务清偿问题产生纠纷，核心争议在于：实际借款人应认定为</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">单独承担责任，</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">还是</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">共同承担责任即</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">构成共同债务。</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">该案的典型性体现在资金流转的复杂性上：首先，借款合同</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">签署主体即</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">缔约方仅为</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">甲</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">；其次，主要资金流向涉及第三人</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">的</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">个人</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">账户；最后，资金</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">的</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">最终</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">使用或</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">用途与工程项目存在关联但证据链不完整。这种</span>&quot;合同主体—资金接收—实际使用&quot;相分离的特征，成为各级法院裁判分歧的根源。</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（二）</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">三级法院</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">四</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">次</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">裁判的立场演变</span></strong></p><p style="margin-top: 0;margin-bottom: 0;margin-left: 0;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI"></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">一审阶段</span></span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">（</span>2023）川1724民初3522号判决严格遵循形式审查原则，认定借条记载的借款人</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">乙</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">为唯一责任主体。法院认为，</span></span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">丙</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">仅作为</span></span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">乙</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">指定的收款人，其账户接收资金的行为不构成债务加入的意思表示，该立场与最高人民法院（</span>2019）最高法民再198号判决确立的&quot;合同文义优先&quot;规则相</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">吻</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">合。</span></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0;margin-bottom: 0;margin-left: 0;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI"></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">二审阶段</span></span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">（</span>2023）川17民终2293号判决转向实质审查路径。合议庭注意到</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">丙</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">实际参与项目经营的事实，结合《四川省高级人民法院关于审理民间借贷纠纷案件若干问题的指导意见》第</span>12条关于&quot;名义借款人&quot;的规定，推定</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">丙</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">为实际资金使用人应承担共同还款责任。这种裁判思路体现了商事审判中</span>&quot;重实质轻形式&quot;的倾向。</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0;margin-bottom: 0;margin-left: 0;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI"></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">再审审查阶段</span></span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">（</span>2024）川民申690号裁定敏锐地发现二审裁判的逻辑漏洞。四川省高院</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">观点</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">，二审判决在突破合同相对性时未充分考察</span>&quot;三方合意&quot;要件，且对资金流向的认定存在事实不清，故指令中院再审。该裁定特别强调，突破合同相对性必须符合&quot;例外从严&quot;的司法政策。</span></p><p style="margin-top: 0;margin-bottom: 0;margin-left: 0;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI"></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">再审阶段</span></span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">（</span>2024）川17民再1号判决最终确立裁判规则。再审合议庭通过系统梳理资金流水、微信聊天记录等新证据，还原了</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">当事人</span></span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">乙的</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">全程控制资金使用的客观事实，最终撤销二审判决，恢复一审认定。该判决书第</span>18页特别阐明：&quot;在缺乏直接证据证明</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">当事人</span></span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:宋体">丙</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">具有共同借款意思表示的情况下，仅凭资金过账行为不能当然推导出债务承担合意。</span>&quot;</span></p><h2 style="margin-top:13px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:13px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">二、</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">再审案件</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">改判的法理基础与标准构建</span></strong></h2><h3 style="margin-top:13px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（一）合同相对性原则的规范内涵</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">再审判决对《合同法》第</span>8条的适用展现出教义学层面的精确把握。根据王利明教授的观点，合同相对性包含三个维度：主体的相对性、内容的相对性与责任的相对性（参见王利明《合同法研究》第一卷，中国人民大学出版社2020年版，第156页）。</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">结合</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">本案：首先，就主体维度而言，借条明确记载缔约双方为</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">甲</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">，</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">既未签署文件，也未通过其他方式作出债务加入</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">明确</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">的意思表示。参照最高人民法院（</span>2020）最高法民终340号判决，非合同当事人除非明确表示接受约束，否则不承担合同责任。其次，在内容维度上，借款合同</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">中</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">约定的权利义务仅在</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">甲</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">之间产生效力。虽然</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">实际接收部分资金，但根据《</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">中华人民共和国</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">民法典》第</span>161条</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">规定，</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">关于代理，其行为性质应认定为受托付款，而非债务承担。这种法律定性与德国学者卡尔</span><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">·拉伦茨提出的&quot;效力范围限定理论&quot;高度吻合（参见[德]卡尔·拉伦茨：《法学方法论》，商务印书馆2021年版，第348页）。</span></span></p><h3 style="margin-top:19px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（二）突破相对性的三重审查标准</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">再审</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">法院（即原二审法院）</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">判决创新性地构建了阶梯式审查框架，为类案审理提供明确指引：</span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">第一层级：明示披露要件</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">，</span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">要求名义借款人必须向出借人明确披露实际资金使用人。本案中，</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">当事人</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">虽然</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">在借条中载明借款用于工程项目，但未指明</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">为实际借款人。相比之下，在参照案例（</span>2018）苏民终1532号中，名义借款人专门出具书面说明指明资金实际使用者，符合披露要求。</span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">第二层级：权责分离要件</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">，</span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><br/></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">需</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">要</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">证明名义借款人不实际参与资金管理且不享有借款利益。再审</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">法院</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">合议庭通过银行流水</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">已经</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">查明，</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">不仅指定收款账户，还直接指挥每笔资金的支付对象与金额。这种深度参与的特征，与突破相对性要求的</span>&quot;消极名义借款人&quot;形象明显不符。</span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">第三层级：合意转换要件</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">，</span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">强调出借人与实际使用人之间必须形成新的权利义务安排。本案</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">中</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">缺乏</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">甲</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">与</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">之间的任何直接磋商证据，而对比案例（</span>2021）京民终489号中，出借人与实际使用人曾就还款计划达成书面补充协议，完全符合该要件。</span></p><h3 style="margin-top:19px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（三）新证据对事实认定的重构价值</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">当事人</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">在再审阶段提交的</span>2016年8月完整银行流水</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">证据材料</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">，成为推翻二审认定的关键证据。该组证据显示：首先，资金流向具有双重独立性。</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">丙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">的个人账户在接收</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">甲</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">转账前已有</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">500</span><span style="font-family:宋体">万</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">元自有资金，该资金与其后接收的</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">450</span><span style="font-family:宋体">万</span></span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">元借款分账管理，</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">作为</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">不同</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">的</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">用途</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">进行使用款项</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">。这种隔离处理方式，否定了二审认定的</span>&quot;资金混同&quot;观点。</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">其次，支付行为体现强烈从属性。所有对外支付均附有</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">的书面指令，符合《</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">中华人民共和国</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">民法典》第</span>162条</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">规定，</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">委托代理的法律特征。正如崔建远教授所言：</span>&quot;代理关系的核心在于意思表示的归属，而非物理上的资金流转&quot;（参见崔建远《合同法总论》，法律出版社2022年版，第217页）。</span></p><h2 style="margin-top:13px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:13px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">三、理论延伸与制度完善</span></strong></h2><h3 style="margin-top:13px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（一）合同相对性的现代发展脉络</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">从历史维度观察，合同相对性原则正经历从绝对化到相对化的演进。美国《第二次合同法重述》第</span>302条确立的&quot;第三方受益人&quot;理论，德国判例发展的&quot;缔约过失责任扩张&quot;规则（</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">乙</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">GHZ 56,81），与《</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">中华人民共和国</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">民法典》第</span>522条利益第三人合同制度，共同构成突破相对性的规范体系。</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">但本案的特殊性在于，其涉及的是</span>&quot;非合意型&quot;突破尝试。对此，梁慧星研究员特别警示：&quot;司法实践必须防止以公平为名破坏合同安定性&quot;（梁慧星《民法解释学》，法律出版社2023年版，第189页）。再审判决通过设定严格证明标准，恰当地平衡了交易安全与个案正义的价值冲突。</span></p><h3 style="margin-top:19px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（二）类案裁判规则的提炼</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">通过对比近五年最高人民法院</span>30件类似案件，可以发现如下裁判规律：</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">在资金流向与合同主体不一致的情形下，</span><span style="font-family: 宋体;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">人民</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">法院普遍要求出借人举证证明以下任一事实：</span></p><p style="margin: 0 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">1.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">实际使用人以书面形式明确承认债务；</span></span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">2.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">存在三方共同签署的债务确认文件；</span></span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 0 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">3.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">资金使用方直接向出借人支付过利息等履约行为。</span></span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">本案再审判决将上述经验上升为可操作的审查标准，对统一裁判尺度具有重要意义。</span></p><h3 style="margin-top:19px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">（三）立法完善建议</span></strong></h3><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:0;text-indent:56px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">现行《民间借贷司法解释》对名义借款人问题规定较为模糊。建议增设专门条款：</span>&quot;名义借款人与实际使用人不一致的，出借人主张实际使用人承担责任的，应当证明存在以下情形之一：（一）实际使用人以书面形式明确表示承担债务；（二）名义借款人在缔约时已向出借人披露实际使用人身份，且出借人明确表示接受该安排；（三）实际使用人直接参与借款磋商或履行过程。&quot;</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;margin-left:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"></span><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px">结论</span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"></span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:37px;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">（</span>2024）川17民再1号判决通过精细化的事实认定与严谨的法律适用，为处理民间借贷中的&quot;名义—实际借款人&quot;争议提供了范本。其确立的三重审查标准，既尊重合同相对性的基本原则，又为特殊情形下的责任认定开辟可行路径。未来立法应当吸收该案的裁判智慧，在司法解释中构建更加完善的规则体系。</span></p><p style="margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:0;text-indent:0;padding:0 0 0 0 ;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:33px;background:rgb(252,252,252)"><strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">参考文献</span><span style="font-family:Segoe UI"></span></span></strong><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px"></span></p><p style="margin: 0 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">1.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">王利明：《合同法研究》（第一卷），中国人民大学出版社</span>2020年版。</span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">2.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">崔建远：《合同法总论》，法律出版社</span>2022年版。</span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">3.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">梁慧星：《民法解释学》，法律出版社</span>2023年版。</span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">4.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">[德]卡尔·拉伦茨：《法学方法论》，商务印书馆2021年版。</span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 3px 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">5.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">最高人民法院（</span>2019）最高法民再198号民事判决书。</span></p><p style="margin: 3px 0 0 3px;padding: 0;vertical-align: baseline;line-height: 33px"><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 16px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)">6.&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: &#39;Segoe UI&#39;;letter-spacing: 0;font-size: 19px;background: rgb(252, 252, 252)"><span style="font-family:Segoe UI">《四川省高级人民法院关于审理民间借贷纠纷案件若干问题的指导意见》（川高法〔</span>2020〕45号）。</span></p><p style="line-height: 33px;"><br/></p>