論商品房預售合同的效力

On the Effectiveness of Advance Sale Contract for Commercial Houses

未取得預售許可而簽訂的預售合同效力，涉及《城市房地產管理法》和《城市商品房預售管理辦法》關於商品房預售許可證制度的違反及其對關聯合同效力的影響問題。就此，需要首先將《合同法》第52條第5項的一般規定與規定許可證要求的具體強制規定結合起來進行思考。在利益考量方面，雖然《城市商品房預售管理辦法》第6條第2款保護的利益通常是確保建築完成以及購買者利益，但這種利益與當事人合同利益相比，並不具有顯著優勢，且《城市商品房預售管理辦法》等規定的制裁措施也足以實現《城市商品房預售管理辦法》第6條第2款的規範目的；相反，無效的後果安排反倒與具體規範的目的相違背。因此，對《城市商品房預售管理辦法》第6條第2款的違反，並不充分《合同法》第52條第5項一般規定的立法目的，無預售許可而簽訂的預售合同應當認定有效。《最高人民法院關於審理商品房買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》第2條規定的結論，儘管做了一定的緩和，但仍不符合所解釋對象的立法目的。

When the parties conclude an advance sale contract for commercial house without an administrative license for the sale, it concerns with the issue of whether the violation against the license system for the advance sale of commercial house, which is regulated respectively by The Urban Real Estate Administration Law of the People's Republic of China (UREAL) and The Measures for the Management of Advance Sale of Urban Commercial Houses (MMAS), has any effect upon the sale contract concerned. To answer this question, the logic in the construction of legal norms should combine the general clause of ius cogens in Art. 52 (5) of Chinese Contract Law (1999) with the concrete mandatory regulation rules which require the qualified license. Considering in perspective of interests balancing, albeit the goal of Art. 6 (2) of MMAS is to protect the interest of buyer and secure the completion of the building, this interest cannot be compared to the interests between contractual parties, that is to say the former is anterior to the latter. On the other hand, to give the violence a void effect will even not conform to the ratio legis of MMAS. Therefore, the violation against Art 6 (2) of MMAS does not suffice the ratio legis of Art. 52 (5) of Chinese Contract Law, and the contract concluded without the administrative license should be treated as effective. That the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Relevant Issues concerning the Application of Law for Trying Cases on Dispute over Contract for the Sale of Commodity Houses (2003) stipulates in its Art. 2 the contract as void, does not conform to the ratio legis of the object of interpretation, i. e. of UREAL and MMAS, although it mitigates somehow its sharp effect.