论欺诈性抚养中抚养人之救济

发布时间：2018-04-30 08:07

本文选题：欺诈性抚养 + 财产损害　；参考：《浙江大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：男方出于对与女方存在的基础社会关系(婚姻关系、非婚同居关系、性伴侣关系等)的信赖,误以女方与他人所生子女为亲生子女加以抚养的案件不在少数,与对维护血缘关系真实性的观念产生激烈的冲突。在立法上,我国就此并无明文规定。在司法上,该类案件的裁判在法律适用的思路、判决理由、判决结果上存在分歧。本文旨在通过司法实践及学界观点之梳理,在比较现有研究之不同观点,对法官审判的理由和结果进行评述的基础之上,在现行法框架内为救济抚养人找到妥适的法律依据。本文共六个部分:第一部分为引言部分,提出问题、阐明研究目的、简要介绍研究方法,重点通过介绍社会现状、法律运行现状及现有研究之不足展现论题的实践和理论价值。第二部分为司法实践梳理部分。本文采用请求权基础理论,先基本确定请求人、被请求人及请求权目标。在区分被请求人的前提下,区分不同请求权目标(财产及非财产损害),分别就法院支持与驳回的立场,结合裁判思路,说明不同案件类型中法院的判决理由。为展现实务上因基础社会关系之不同所致判决理由上的差异,区分双方是否存在婚姻关系,并在存在婚姻关系的案件内部根据是否违反忠实义务进一步细分登记婚前/后与他人发生性关系的情形。第三部分是欺诈性抚养研究范畴的界定。对欺诈性抚养的概念变迁为一介绍,并指出其名实不符之处。为避免预设结论,对研究范畴的划定侧重事实描述,只要满足"男方(祖父母)基于与被抚养人存在血缘关系的错误认识对生母与男方以外之人生育之子女加以抚养"这一事实描述,即落入"欺诈性抚养"应当探讨的范畴。错误认识产生的原因为何仅影响请求权基础的选择。该部分还论证了婚姻法及其他民事法律介入欺诈性抚养纠纷的正当性。第四部分对财产损害诉求的请求权基础进行了论证。对不予支持的否定说予以否定,以请求权检索的方式对认为应予支持的肯定说立场下的不同理由进行了批判和论证,否定了行为无效说、违约行为说、无因管理说。论证了婚姻法内救济手段离婚损害赔偿请求权在待研究案件类型中适用范围狭窄,财产分割时照顾无过错方原则在适用上具备辅助性。在婚姻法内部救济不力的情形下,转向其他的民事法律寻求救济,其中债权的法定让与虽有道理但缺乏实证法支持;不当得利返还请求权在本文讨论的案件中有广泛的适用余地;就侵权损害赔偿请求权而言,重点阐述了一般侵权行为构成要件(加害行为、过错、损害事实、因果关系),并对援引侵权应满足的构成要件以及与不当得利返还请求权的适用关系进行了阐述。第五部分对非财产损害诉求的请求权基础进行了论证。重点就被侵害权益为何展开论述,对学界及司法实践中对被侵害权益的不同认定为评述,得出侵害"防止他人有目的地隐瞒与生命延续等切身利益相关的信息"这一非典型人格利益的结论。第六部分是结论与建议部分。总结本文研究结论,提出此类案件中的司法处理步骤及应当援引的法律依据,并就责任的具体认定为简要总结,以期为统一司法实践发挥参考价值。
[Abstract]:The man's trust in basic social relations (marriage, unmarried cohabitation, sexual partner, etc.) is not in a small number of cases, and there is a fierce conflict with the concept of maintaining the authenticity of blood relations. In legislation, there is no clear rule in our country. In the judicature, the referee of this kind of case is different in the applicable law of the law, the reason of the judgment and the result of the judgment. This article aims to compare the different views of the existing research and comment on the reasons and results of the judge's trial through the judicial practice and the academic view, and to find the relief support in the framework of the current law. To the legal basis of appropriateness. This article consists of six parts: the first part is the introduction, put forward the questions, clarify the purpose of the study, introduce the research methods briefly, and focus on the practice and theoretical value of the topic by introducing the social status, the status of the law operation and the shortcomings of the existing research. The second part is a part of the judicial practice. On the basis of the basic theory of seeking rights, we first basically determine the request, the requested person and the right of request. On the premise of differentiating the requestor, distinguish the different claim targets (property and non property damage), separately on the position of the court support and dismissal, and combine the referee's ideas to explain the reasons for the judgment of the law academy in the different types of cases. The differences in the reasons for the differences in social relations, distinguish whether there is a marriage relationship between the two parties, and further subdivide the relationship between pre marital / post marriage and others in the case of violation of the obligation of loyalty in the case of marital relations. The third part is the definition of the research category of fraudulent foster care. In order to avoid presupposition, to avoid a presupposed conclusion, to lay particular emphasis on the description of the scope of the study, as long as it satisfies the fact that "the man (grandparent) is based on a wrong understanding of the relationship with the dependants of the child to be raised by the birth mother and the man outside the man", that is, "deceit". The fourth part of this part also demonstrates the legitimacy of the marriage law and other civil laws involved in the dissension of fraudulent support. The fourth part demonstrates the basis of the claim for the claim for property damage. The way of searching for the right of claim is criticized and demonstrated for the different reasons that should be supported by the affirmative position, and denies the theory of invalid behavior, the breach of contract, and the non cause management. It demonstrates that the claim for compensation for the compensation for divorce damages in the marriage law is narrow in the application of the case type, and there is no fault to take care of the property when the property is divided. In the case of inadequate internal relief in the marriage law, it turns to other civil laws to seek relief, in which the legal assignment of the creditor's right is justified but lacks the support of the empirical law; the right to return the unjust enrichment is widely applicable in the cases discussed in this article; and the claim for compensation for tort damages is concerned. In the fifth part, the fifth part expounds the basis of the claim on the claim of non property damage. The emphasis is on the rights and interests of the infringed rights and interests. The sixth part is the conclusion and the suggestion part. The conclusion of this paper is the conclusion and the conclusion of this kind of case, and the conclusion of this kind of case is put forward in this kind of case. The judicial process and the legal basis that should be invoked, and the concrete cognizance of responsibility is a brief summary, so as to provide reference value for the unified judicial practice.

【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.9

【参考文献】