繼續性合同的解除

民法典合同編新規定的“違約方解除權”引發關注，滋生爭議。引發該問題的“新宇公司訴馮玉梅案”本身仍有諸多基本問題，需要澄清。現行法關於繼續性合同的解除規則供給不足，以至於在合同僵局場合法院被迫從擬制當事人的意思出發解除合同、打破僵局。立法的問題應通過立法解決。合同僵局問題並非僅在中國出現，在德、日兩國，圍繞繼續性合同的解除（終止），立法及判例均有較為成熟的經驗積累，值得我國立法借鑒。無視此類比較法經驗，獨創“違約方解除權”規則，並不可行。目前草案中的違約方解除權規則無法破解合同僵局，必須修正。建議借鑒《德國民法典》第314條，規定當事人可基於重大事由解除繼續性合同。民法典就繼續性合同的特別解除存在法律漏洞，則應類推適用保管合同的“特別事由”解除，或者類推適用婚姻關係“感情確已破裂”規則，由當事人請求法院解除。

A new provision in the draft of China’s Civil Code, namely Article 353(3)on the ''breaching party's right to termination'' , has attracted attention and become very controversial issue. The case raising the issue, ''Xinyu Co. vs. Feng Yumei'' , has left a lot of misunderstandings demanding clarification. The existing Chinese law supplies inadequate rules on termination of long-term contracts. And in order to break the deadlocks of contract, judges have been obliged to construct an agreement of the parties to terminate the contract by implication. However, insufficiency in law should be improved by legislation. Since such an issue of deadlock of contract is not an issue only existing in China, comparative legal studies may provide help. Based on a comparative study of both German and Japanese laws on termination of long-term contract, the author suggests the Chinese legislature to follow the German BGB§314, which is on termination, for a compelling reason, of contracts for the performance of a continuing obligation. The author has also introduced two German cases, in order to show how to apply the rule on termination of long-term contract for a compelling reason.