违约方合同申请解除权的适用问题研究——以《民法典》第580条第2款为中心
Research on the Application of the Right of Contract Termination by the Defaulting Party—Focusing on Article 580, Paragraph 2 of the “Civil Code”

《民法典》第580条第2款虽为违约方破解合同僵局提供了法律依据，但是还存在着权利适用主体、适用范围、以及适用方式缺少细致规定的问题。首先《民法典》第580条第2款规定的应当是违约方的合同解除权，并非守约方的合同解除权。其次从违约方解除权法律适用的现实需要来看，虽然《民法典》第580条第1款已经规定违约方合同解除权权利的行使以非金钱债务为适用前提，但是如果以非金钱债务作为前提适用于第580条第2款的规定，必将导致包括房屋租赁合同在内的金钱债务的违约方丧失行使合同申请解除权的权利，这不利于解决金钱债务合同僵局纠纷中出现的法律问题。秉持合同解除“义务解放说”，我们应当允许负担金钱债务的相对方在无法继续履行合同时，向人民法院申请解除合同，扩大违约方解除权的法律适用范围。最后违约方通过向人民法院申请解除僵局合同的，只要符合法定解除合同条件的，人民法院就应当及时宣告其所申请合同的“死亡”，以了结纠纷，让因合同引起的社会关系回归稳定状态。与此同时，法院要严格行使赋予违约方合同解除权利的司法裁判权，以破解合同僵局。在这过程中确保守约方因合同履行所遭受损失得到应有的赔偿。力求通过完善司法解释有关违约方解除权适用主体、适用范围与适用方式的具体规定，将《民法典》第580条第2款规定的效果发挥到最大。
Although the second paragraph of Article 580 of the “Civil Code” provides a legal basis for the breaching party to break the contractual deadlock, there are issues, such as the lack of detailed regulations regarding the applicable subjects, scope, and methods of application of rights. Firstly, what is stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 580 of the “Civil Code” should be the right of the breaching party to terminate the contract rather than that of the non-breaching party. Secondly, from the perspective of the practical needs for the legal application of the right of the breaching party to terminate the contract, although Paragraph 1 of Article 580 of the “Civil Code” has stipulated that the exercise of the right of the breaching party to terminate the contract is premised on non-monetary obligations, if non-monetary obligations are taken as the premise and applied to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 580, it will undoubtedly lead to the loss of the right of the breaching party in monetary debt contracts, such as housing lease contracts, to exercise the right to apply for the termination of the contract. This is not conducive to resolving the legal issues that arise in disputes over contractual deadlocks involving monetary debts. Upholding the “liberation of obligations” theory of contract termination, we should permit the counterpart who bears monetary debts to apply to the People’s Court for the termination of the contract when they are unable to continue performing it. Expand the legal application scope of the right of the breaching party to terminate the contract. Finally, if the breaching party applies to the people’s court for rescission of the deadlock contract, as long as the conditions for rescission of the contract are met by law, the people’s court shall promptly declare the