CAJ | 학술논문

关于非法吸收公众存款罪中借贷合同的效力问题，理论界和实务界争议颇多，主要有以下三种代表性的观点：一是无效说，二是有效说，三是区别对待说。这三种观点从不同角度对非法吸收公众存款罪中借贷合同的效力问题进行了论述，虽有一定的合理之处，但都存在着不同程度的缺陷及不足。文章指出，准确认定借贷合同的效力应根据行为人的借款目的区别对待：以正常生产经营为目的的涉案借贷合同应有效；以放贷为目的的涉案借贷合同应无效。
관우비법흡수공음존관죄중차대합동적효력문제，이론계화실무계쟁의파다，주요유이하삼충대표성적관점：일시무효설，이시유효설，삼시구별대대설。저삼충관점종불동각도대비법흡수공음존관죄중차대합동적효력문제진행료논술，수유일정적합리지처，단도존재착불동정도적결함급불족。문장지출，준학인정차대합동적효력응근거행위인적차관목적구별대대：이정상생산경영위목적적섭안차대합동응유효；이방대위목적적섭안차대합동응무효。
There are still many controversies on the validity of loan contracts related to the crime of illegal pooling of public deposits in theory and practice .Now there exist the following representative points of view：the first considers the contracts invalid , the second claims the contracts should be effective , and the third states the contracts should be treated differently .The opinions mentioned above have discussed the question from different angles and have some reasonable parts , but there are also various degrees of flaws in each opinion.To determine the validity of loan contracts accurately , we should treat the contracts differently according to the doer ’ s purpose of borrowing .The contracts should be effective if the doer ’ s purpose is for regular production and management .And the contracts , intended to lend , are supposed to be invalid .