The expression of meaning can be expressed not only explicitly, but also implicitly. The provision of Article 140 of the Civil Code of China provides a legal basis for determining the expression of silent intention through the use of transaction customs, and clarifies that “silence” is an implicit form of inaction with four characteristics: drafting, commercial, reservation, and trustworthiness. The author searched for 940 relevant judicial documents on “Peking University Treasure” and provided in-depth interpretation and analysis of typical cases among them. Although the law has clear provisions and theoretical foundations for legislation and judiciary, there is a lack of further applicable rules, and there are significant differences in the judgment views of different courts in similar cases in different regions. The reason why the problem of “different judgments in the same case” often arises is due to the failure to distinguish between “silence” and “implication”, the failure to grasp the limitations of the application of “silence”, the failure to distinguish between the differences in the expression of “silence” between civil and commercial subjects, and the insufficient completeness of relevant legislative norms. In response to this, the author proposes five strategies. Firstly, in civil justice, the use of transactional customs to determine the expression of silence should first distinguish between “silence” and “implication”; Secondly, in commercial disputes, the term “silence" should be recognized based on the 'transaction customs between the parties'; Thirdly, in narrow civil legal disputes, “silence” cannot be identified by “the transaction habits between the parties”; Fourthly, in economic legal disputes, the customary meaning of “no objection” should be distinguished between civil and commercial subjects; Fifth, through legislation or judicial interpretation, improve the detailed rules for determining the expression of silent intention in civil justice using the transaction habits between parties.

意思表示不仅可以用明示方式，还可以用默示方式。中国《民法典》第140条的规定 为运用交易习惯确定沉默意思表示提供了法律依据，并明确了“沉默”是“默示”的一种 不作为形式，具有拟制性、商事性、预约性以及信赖性四个特征。笔者在“北大法宝”上 检索到相关裁判文书达940份，并对其中的典型案件予以深入解读和分析。尽管法律对此 有明确规定，也具有立法和司法的理论基础，但由于缺少更进一步的适用细则，并且不同 地区不同法院在同类案件中的裁判观点差异较大。之所以时常出现“同案不同判”的问 题，其症结在于未能区分“沉默”与“默示”，未能把握“沉默”适用的限制条件，未能 区分民事主体与商事主体“沉默”表达意思存在差异以及相关立法规范不够完备。对此， 笔者提出五点应对策略。第一，民事司法中运用交易习惯确定沉默意思表示首先应区分 “沉默”与“默示”的区别；第二，商事纠纷中应当运用“当事人之间的交易习惯”认定 “沉默”；第三，狭义民事法律纠纷中不能用“当事人之间的交易习惯”认定“沉默”；第四，经济法律纠纷中应区分民事主体与商事主体“未异议”的习惯含义；第五，通过立 法或司法解释方式，完善民事司法中运用当事人之间交易习惯确定沉默意思表示的细则。

【摘要】
1. 引言
2. 中国民法规范中交易习惯确定沉默意思表示的概述
    1）交易习惯确定沉默意思表示的概念
    2）交易习惯确定沉默意思表示的特征
    3）交易习惯确定沉默意思表示规定的演变
3. 中国民事司法中运用交易习惯确定沉默意思表示的现状
    1）案由
    2）法院级别
    3）审理法院
    4）审理程序
    5）审结年份
4. 中国民事司法中运用交易习惯确定沉默意思表示的问题
    1）商事法律纠纷中运用交易习惯认定沉默的意思表示有争议
    2）狭义民事法律关系纠纷中运用交易习惯认定沉默的意思表示有争议
    3）经济法律纠纷中运用交易习惯确定沉默的意思表示有争议
    4）小结
5. 中国民事司法中运用交易习惯确定沉默意思表示问题的应对
    1）法院应准确理解“沉默”与“默示”意思表示的运用差别
    2）商事纠纷中应运用“当事人之间的交易习惯”认定“沉默”
    3）狭义民事纠纷中不能用“当事人之间的交易习惯”认定“沉默”
    4）经济法律纠纷中应区分民事主体与商事主体的“未异议”
    5）出台立法或司法解释
6. 结论
【参考文献】
【논문초록】

• 潘润全(东亚大学国际法务专业博士研究生，北京律师法学研究会研究员) | 판룬취엔