Third Party Protection In False Civil Legal Acts

Article 146 of China's General Principles of Civil Law provides for the first time the validity of false civil juristic acts,which provides clear legal guidance for this widely discussed issue.But the disadvantage of this article is that it only stipulates the invalidity of a false civil juristic act between the parties,but it does not stipulate the effectiveness of the false act for the third party whose interests are damaged by trusting the false act between the parties.In fact,during the formulation of the General Principles of Civil Law,the provisions on false civil juristic acts have undergone some changes.In the first to fourth draft reviews of the General Principles of Civil Law,the proviso rule of "the invalidity shall not confront bona fide third party" exists.During the final deliberations of the General Principles of Civil Law,some scholars suggested that the proviso rule may be acquired in good faith with Article 106 of the Property Law in its specific application.After deliberation,the General Assembly decided to delete the proviso rule.As soon as the General Principles of Civil Law was promulgated,the lack of the Provisional Rules has aroused heated discussions in the practical and theoretical circles: different judges have made different judgments in similar cases in judicial practice due to the lack of clear legal guidance;the controversy in the theoretical circles about the protection of third party in false civil juristic acts mainly lies in whether the protection should be placed in the General Principles of Civil Law or not.Put it in the subdivisions of the Civil Code.Many countries in the continental law system have provisions on the validity of false civil juristic acts.Most of these countries stipulate that false civil juristic acts are invalid between the parties,and the parties may not confront bona fide third parties with such invalidity.Some countries,such as Germany and Russia,put the provisions on the protection of third parties in a specific subsection.However,the actual situation of each country is different,each country's legal provisions have its basis,reason and basis for implementation,basically can protect the legitimate rights and interests of bona fide third party very well.As far as China is concerned,we should also explore the legislative model suitable for our country in light of our actual situation.The protection of the third party in false civil juristic acts may be involved in the realm of real right,creditor's rights and equity in our country.In the realm of real right,first of all,the bona fide acquisition system can not cover the acquisition of all property rights.Secondly,the bona fide acquisition system and the non-confrontation rule can not solve the same problem.The bona fide acquisition solves the problem of property ownership,while the non-confrontation rule refers to the validity of expression of intention.The two rules will not conflict in application,and the validity problem depends on the non-confrontation rule.In the field of creditor's rights,there are no provisions on the protection of the third party in the false civil legal acts in our current law,but the application of the rule of no confrontation with bona fide third party can solve this problem well;in the field of equity rights that do not belong to creditor's rights or property rights,we also need to rely on the rule of no confrontation to bona fide third party in the false civil legal acts.Protect.Therefore,under the realistic background of our country,it is more appropriate to stipulate the protection of the third party in false civil juristic acts in the general provisions in the form of non-confrontation with bona fide third party.