论我国继承回复请求权制度的构建

发布时间：2018-03-30 21:41

本文选题：继承回复请求权　切入点：性质　出处：《华南理工大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：民法是确认和保障权利的法。为了保护权利,民法建立了一系列请求权体系。继承权是一项独立的民事权利,其权利救济制度至关重要,但我国立法对此却几乎处于空白状态。我国现行《继承法》包括附则总共只有37个条文,且几乎没有涉及对继承权受侵害后的救济问题。继承回复请求权制度源自罗马法上的继承诉,是对继承权的保护,在继承权受侵害后给予的全面的、包括性的救济。随着社会的发展,人员流动性增大,财产的形式丰富多彩,继承纠纷的情况也日益复杂。依我国当然继承主义,自被继承人死亡时,继承人当然地开始继承,无须办理任何手续也不必现实地占有遗产。但这种对遗产的取得仅是观念上的取得,在实践中经常会有遗产被他人占有的情形,故像继承诉这样的全面、包括地保护继承人继承权的继承制度仍然有着重要的制度价值。我国并没有明确的继承回复请求权制度,因此在《继承法》修改之际,研究继承回复请求权的制度价值、性质、行使以及时效等问题具有重要意义。本文一共分为四个部分。第一章是继承回复请求权的制度价值,本章主要采用价值分析、历史分析的方法,探讨继承回复请求权的起源以及我国制定继承回复请求权制度的必要性。第二章是继承回复请求权性质的理论争议及评析。对权利的定性是制定一切制度的基础。目前理论界对继承回复请求权的性质主要有形成权说、请求权说、折衷说三种观点。本文通过比较他国立法并结合我国的实际情况,倾向于折衷说,认为继承回复请求权是一种复合性权利,既包括继承人继承地位的确定也包括请求返还遗产的请求权,二者缺一不可。同时,其对遗产的返还请求权包括物权请求权、不当得利请求权等,是一项包括性的、独立的请求权。故可对其设立一个统一的消灭时效。第三章是继承回复请求权的行使主体及条件,主要解决继承回复请求权在我国的实际运用问题。第四章是继承回复请求权时效制度的选择。本文通过对近现代各国或地区民法典中继承回复请求权时效制度的不同规定的比较分析,结合继承回复请求权的性质,认为对其应适用双重的时效制度。因为消灭时效并不能给当事人创造某种权利,故为了维护经济的稳定,交易的安全,应制定取得时效制度。
[Abstract]:Civil law is the law of confirming and protecting rights. In order to protect rights, civil law has established a series of claim system. Inheritance right is an independent civil right, and its right relief system is very important. However, the legislation of our country is almost blank. In total, there are only 37 articles in China's current inheritance Law, including the supplementary provisions. There is hardly any relief for the infringement of the right of inheritance. The system of the right of claim for reply to inheritance originates from the inheritance action in Roman law, and it is the protection of the right of inheritance, which is given in a comprehensive way after the infringement of the right of inheritance. Including sexual relief. With the development of society, the mobility of personnel increases, the forms of property are rich and colorful, and the situation of inheritance disputes becomes increasingly complex. According to the doctrine of natural inheritance in our country, since the death of the heirs, the heirs naturally begin to inherit. There is no need to go through any formalities nor to have a realistic possession of the estate. But this acquisition of the estate is merely a matter of conceptual acquisition, and in practice there is often a situation in which the estate is in possession of another person, so that it is as comprehensive as an inheritance suit, The inheritance system, which includes the protection of the inheritance rights of the heirs, still has important institutional value. China does not have a clear system of inheritance and reply claims, so when the inheritance Law is amended, it studies the institutional value and nature of the right to claim for the reply of inheritance. This paper is divided into four parts: the first chapter is the system value of the claim of inheritance reply, this chapter mainly adopts the method of value analysis, historical analysis, and so on. This paper probes into the origin of the claim of succession reply and the necessity of formulating the system of the right of claim of succession reply in our country. The second chapter is the theoretical dispute and analysis of the nature of the claim right of succession reply. The characterization of the right is the basis of the establishment of all systems. At present, the theorists mainly have the theory of the right of formation to the nature of the claim of succession reply. By comparing the legislation of other countries and combining the actual situation of our country, this paper tends to compromise that the claim right of succession reply is a kind of compound right. Both include the ascertainment of the succession status of the heirs and the right to request the return of the estate. At the same time, the claim for the return of the estate includes the right of claim in real right, the right of claim for improper enrichment, and so on. The independent right of claim. Therefore, we can establish a unified limitation of extinction. Chapter III is the subject and condition of the exercise of the right of claim of succession and reply. The fourth chapter is about the choice of the limitation system of inheritance reply claim. This paper deals with the limitation system of inheritance reply claim in the civil code of modern countries or regions. Comparative analysis of different provisions, Combined with the nature of the right of inheritance reply, it is considered that the dual prescription system should be applied to it, because the extinguishing limitation can not create certain rights for the parties concerned, so in order to maintain the economic stability and the security of the transaction, the acquisitive prescription system should be established.
【学位授予单位】：华南理工大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.5

【参考文献】