“祭奠权”请求权规范基础与类推适用

发布时间：2018-02-16 21:00

本文关键词： “祭奠权” 非法定权利祭奠法益类推适用　出处：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：近年来,所谓的“祭奠权”纠纷不断增多,这给学术界和实务界都带来了巨大的挑战。我国法律上对于“祭奠权”并没有进行规定,因此审判实务中的处理差异也较大,甚至是截然相反的结果。那么作为非法定权利如何在当下法律体系下更好地获得保护,值得我们探讨和研究。本文以“祭奠权”为例,采用历史分析、比较研究、实证研究等方法对“祭奠权”的有关法律问题进行了分析,证成类推适用是有效解决此类非法定权利规制问题的法律方法,从而为司法实践中对此类权利的解决办法提供理论依据。本文正文主要分为五个部分:第一部分:“祭奠权”:法定权利与习惯权利的理论争议。本文通过两个案例,说明我国实务界对“祭奠权”的处理结果大相径庭,同时,我国理论界对于“祭奠权”的定性以及请求权规范基础等颇具争议。第二部分:我国“祭奠权”纠纷在司法实践中的解决类型。我国在司法实践中主要通过适用风俗习惯、公序良俗原则,类推适用亲属权、名誉权制度进行规制,但是都存在不足。第三部分:“祭奠权”的定性及其法例。“祭奠权”满足法益的构成要件,因此“祭奠权”实为祭奠法益,应受我国法律保护,而德国、日本以及我国台湾地区等已经存在着相关的立法与司法例可资借鉴。第四部分:“祭奠权”请求权规范基础的甄别——侵权责任法第二条不能成为请求权规范基础。我国民法体系中“等”字有不同用法,但基本是做列举煞尾之用。侵权责任法第二条中的“等”也应是做列举煞尾之用,因此不能通过扩大解释和目的解释将祭奠法益涵盖其中。第五部分:“祭奠权”的类推适用。现行法律对祭奠法益没有进行保护的情况下,应类推适用相关制度对祭奠法益进行保护,通过完善类推适用模型,可以证成类推适用解决祭奠法益案件的合理性。
[Abstract]:In recent years, disputes over the so-called "right of memorial service" have been increasing, which has brought great challenges to both academic and practical circles. In our country, there is no provision for the "right of memorial service" in law, so there is also a great difference in the handling of the trial practice. Even the opposite result. Then how to better protect non-statutory rights under the current legal system is worth our discussion and study. This article takes the "right to sacrifice" as an example, using historical analysis and comparative study. Empirical research and other methods have analyzed the relevant legal issues of "the right to sacrifice", and proved that analogical application is an effective legal method to solve this kind of non-statutory right regulation problem. The main body of this paper is divided into five parts: the first part: "the right to sacrifice": the theoretical dispute between legal right and customary right. It shows that the results of the treatment of "the right to sacrifice" in China's practical circles are quite different, and at the same time, The nature of "the right to sacrifice" and the normative basis of the right of claim are controversial in the theoretical circle of our country. Part two: the type of settlement of the dispute of "right of memorial service" in judicial practice in our country. The principle of public order and good custom, the system of the right of relatives and the right of reputation are all regulated by analogy, but there are some deficiencies. Part three: the characterization of "right to sacrifice" and its legislation. "the right to sacrifice" satisfies the constituent elements of legal interest. Therefore, "the right to sacrifice" should be protected by the law of our country, while Germany, There are already relevant legislative and judicial examples for reference in Japan and Taiwan. Part 4th: the discrimination of the normative basis of the right of memorial service-Article 2 of the Tort liability Law cannot become the normative basis of the right of claim. In the civil law system of our country, the word "etc" has different usages. But basically it is used to enumerate the tail. The "etc" in Article 2 of the Tort liability Law should also be used to enumerate the tail. Therefore, it is not possible to extend the interpretation and purpose explanation to cover the benefit of the memorial law. Part 5th: the analogous application of the "right to sacrifice." where the present law does not protect the legal interests of the memorial service, The relevant system should be applied by analogy to protect the legal benefits of memorial service. By perfecting the model of analogical application, it can be proved that the analogical application can be used to solve the legal interests of memorial service cases.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】