摘要
建设用地使用权出让合同的基本属性是民事性,即出让合同为民事合同,不应“改性”为行政协议。出让制度的目的在于以市场手段配置资源,其本质是平等有偿设立建设用地使用权。在现行法体系中,出让合同主要受《民法典》调整,是重要的民事合同类型;出让合同在行政法规中也是以民事性为本位;《土地管理法》等公法对该合同的规定旨在辅助建设用地使用权的出让而不会改变其法律性质。出让合同行为中并无行政权的实施或转移,也不具有行政协议的构成要件,无论是从法理还是法规范上,皆不能算作行政协议。出让合同行政协议说谬误的根源,在于混淆了行政法上的权利义务、行政优益权与行政管理三者之间的关系。如果将出让合同“改性”为行政协议,不仅有害合同正义与救济效果,会造成裁判与诉源治理的司法困境,还违背了现代法治精神,有损中国特色社会主义法律体系。
The legal nature of the contract for the transfer of the right to use a lot of land for construction purposes is civil,and the contract is a civil contract and should not be‘modified'into an administrative agreement.The purpose of the system for the transfer of the right to use a lot of land for construction purposes is to allocate resources through market mechanism,and its essence is to establish the right to use a lot of land for construction purposes on an equal and remunerative basis.In the current legal system,the contract for the transfer of the right to use a lot of land for construction purposes is mainly regulated by the Civil Code and is an important type of civil contract;such contract is also based on civil nature in administrative regulations;the provisions of the Land Administration Law and other public laws on such contract aim to facilitate the transfer of the right to use a lot of land for construction purposes without changing its legal nature.Such contract neither involves the implementation or transfer of administrative rights,nor contains the constituent elements of an administrative agreement.Therefore,it cannot be considered as an administrative agreement in terms of jurisprudence or legal norms.The fallacy of the administrative agreement theory is rooted in the mixing up of the relationship between rights and obligations under administrative law,administrative preferential rights,and administrative management.If the nature of the contract for the transfer of the right to use a lot of land for construction purposes is'modified'into an administrative agreement,it will not only be detrimental to the justice of the contract and its relief effects,but also create a judicial dilemma in the administration of justice and the governance of the source of litigation.It is further contrary to the spirit of modern rule of law and undermines the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics.
出处
《中国法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第6期201-221,共21页
China Legal Science
基金
2015年度国家社科基金重大项目“自然资源权利配置研究”(项目批准号:15ZDB176)的阶段性成果。
