本文選題：公證賠償制度 + 歸責(zé)原則��； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：第一章主要是對公證賠償制度的一般考查。第一節(jié)論述公證賠償?shù)姆蓪傩�。我們要考察公證賠償?shù)姆蓪傩跃捅仨殢姆治龉C機(jī)構(gòu)的性質(zhì)入手。筆者認(rèn)為,公證賠償?shù)男再|(zhì)與公證行為的性質(zhì)密切相關(guān),而公證兼有行政行為和民事行為的雙重屬性。也就是說,公證機(jī)構(gòu)：一方面,根據(jù)國家的授權(quán)行使公證權(quán)力,其行為的效力有國家強(qiáng)制力予以保障,具有一定的公權(quán)性；另一方面,它具有一定的自由勝性或者說自由職業(yè)性,可以通過特殊的選拔制度從民問選拔公證員,或者由國家特許授權(quán)的機(jī)構(gòu)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的公證職能�；朔治�,公證機(jī)構(gòu)的法律屬性頁具有雙重屬性：一方面,公證機(jī)構(gòu)屬于法律法規(guī)授權(quán)的組織,行使法律授予的國家證明權(quán),執(zhí)行國家公共職能；另一方面,公證機(jī)構(gòu)又是自主開展業(yè)務(wù)、獨(dú)立承擔(dān)責(zé)任、按照市場規(guī)律和自律制運(yùn)行的公益性、非營利性的事業(yè)法人。第二節(jié)論述了公證賠償?shù)臍w責(zé)原則,從《公證法》來看,公證賠償?shù)臍w責(zé)原則適用的是過錯責(zé)任原則,這也是學(xué)術(shù)界的通說,也就是說,公證人員必須存在過錯,公證機(jī)構(gòu)才能承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任,否則,公證機(jī)構(gòu)就不承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。筆者認(rèn)為公證賠償?shù)臍w責(zé)原則由過錯的客觀性。公證賠償?shù)呢?zé)任構(gòu)成：主體要件：公證賠償?shù)闹黧w必須是公證機(jī)構(gòu)及其公證人員。只有公證機(jī)構(gòu)和公證人員做出的錯證、假證行為,才能構(gòu)成公證賠償,其他任何機(jī)構(gòu)和個人的行為均不能成為公證賠償責(zé)任的主體；行為要件：1、公證人員在履行公證職務(wù)即辦理公證事項(xiàng)的過程中必須有過錯,公證機(jī)構(gòu)才承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任；2、公證人員的行為(包括作為或不作為的形式)具有違法性；3、必須是行使公證職務(wù)的行為；損害事實(shí)：公證機(jī)構(gòu)及其公證員因過錯給公證當(dāng)事人或公證事項(xiàng)的利害關(guān)系人造成了損失,即必須有公證損失的發(fā)生；因果關(guān)系構(gòu)成：公證機(jī)構(gòu)及其公證人員的過錯職務(wù)行為與公證當(dāng)事人和公證事項(xiàng)利害關(guān)系人損失的發(fā)生具有因果關(guān)系。以上的4個構(gòu)成要件在認(rèn)定公證賠償責(zé)任時必須同時具備,如果缺少了上述4個要件中的任何一個,公證機(jī)構(gòu)及其公證人員就不可能承擔(dān)任何的賠償責(zé)任。 第二章是對公證賠償制度的比較法考察。主要是對大陸法系的法國和德國的公證賠償制度和英美法系的美國公證賠償制度以及我國港澳臺地區(qū)公證賠償制度。第二部分主要是對我國公證賠償制度的實(shí)踐及總體評價(jià),從而指出我國公證賠償制度本身存在的不足和缺陷：在公證體制改革與公證立法中,雖然借鑒和學(xué)習(xí)了以法國公證為代表的拉丁公證制度的理論和制度設(shè)計(jì)。但是應(yīng)當(dāng)看到,我國的社會條件與法國不同,尤其在法律環(huán)境上我國現(xiàn)階段還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)落后于法國社會。我國不能照搬法國的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn),不同的社會階段,應(yīng)當(dāng)有不同的處理。也有學(xué)者認(rèn)為,大陸法不能很好地順應(yīng)社會需要,而英美法卻能靈活應(yīng)付社會變遷,公證賠償制度模式選擇大陸法與英美法兼收并蓄也很自然。 第三章完是在前兩章論述的基礎(chǔ)上對完善我國的公證賠償制度的提出自己的一點(diǎn)淺見：統(tǒng)一責(zé)任主體：在我國,目前存在行政、事業(yè)、合作三種體制形式的公證機(jī)構(gòu),從理論上講,這三種體制公證處的責(zé)任主體應(yīng)當(dāng)有所區(qū)別；但基于對當(dāng)事人權(quán)益的維護(hù),統(tǒng)一由公證處作為責(zé)任主體比較合適。但并不因此免除有過錯執(zhí)業(yè)行為的公證人員的法律責(zé)任；賠償范圍：筆者主張,從履行公證職務(wù)的角度,是否有過錯的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)該是公證機(jī)構(gòu)或公證人員是否履行了應(yīng)盡的義務(wù)和職責(zé),而且這些義務(wù)和職責(zé)是法律規(guī)定或公證行業(yè)規(guī)范所確定的；確立賠償責(zé)任的雙罰制：即民事責(zé)任與行政責(zé)任相結(jié)合。當(dāng)公證員基于過錯而致使當(dāng)事人利益受損失時,不僅公證處應(yīng)進(jìn)行賠償(而后可向有故意或重大過失的公證員追償),對公證機(jī)構(gòu)和經(jīng)辦公證員亦應(yīng)予以執(zhí)業(yè)紀(jì)律上的行政責(zé)任處分,以示懲誡；完善賠償體制；公證賠償中的連帶責(zé)任：其一是公證員與審批人、公證員助理的連帶責(zé)任；其二是公證員與翻譯、打印、檔案管理人員的連帶責(zé)任；其三是因提存等業(yè)務(wù)發(fā)生的委托代理人的連帶責(zé)任；完善賠償程序：筆者認(rèn)為公證賠償?shù)某绦驊?yīng)有內(nèi)部救濟(jì)程序和訴訟救濟(jì)程序兩種程序供當(dāng)事人選擇；合理分配舉證責(zé)任：根據(jù)“誰主張,誰舉證”的原理,公證賠償申請人或公證事項(xiàng)利害關(guān)系人應(yīng)該對公證機(jī)構(gòu)在辦理公證過程中的違法行為、損害結(jié)果、違法行為與損害結(jié)果之間的因果關(guān)系這三個要件進(jìn)行舉證；增加時效免責(zé)的規(guī)定；加強(qiáng)公證人員職業(yè)道德建設(shè)。
[Abstract]:The first chapter is the general examination of the system of notarial compensation. The first section discusses the legal attribute of notarial compensation. We should examine the legal attributes of notarial compensation from the analysis of the nature of the notarial institutions. The author holds that the nature of notarial compensation is closely related to the nature of the notarial behavior, and that notarization has both administrative and civil acts. In other words, the notary agency: on the one hand, the power of notarization is exercised in accordance with the authorization of the state, the effect of which is guaranteed by the force of the state, with a certain public power; on the other hand, it has a certain degree of freedom or freelance, and can select a notary from the people through a special selection system, or According to the analysis, the legal attribute pages of the notary institutions have dual attributes: on the one hand, the notary institutions belong to the organizations authorized by the laws and regulations, exercise the state's right to prove the state and carry out the state's public functions; on the other hand, the notary agency is independent to carry out its own business, alone. The second section discusses the principle of imputation for notary compensation. From the notary law, the principle of fault liability applies to the principle of the imputation of notary compensation, which is also the general theory of the academic circle, that is to say, the notary must have fault and notary machine. The author thinks that the liability principle of notary compensation consists of the objectivity of the fault and the liability of notarial compensation: the main elements: the main body of the notary compensation must be the notary agency and its notarial personnel. In order to constitute a notarial compensation, the behavior of any other institution and individual can not be the subject of the notarial liability; 1, the notary personnel must have fault in the process of performing notarization, the notary public is responsible for the liability; 2, the behavior of the notary personnel (including the form or the form of inaction) Type) has the illegality; 3, it must be the act of exercising the notarial duty; the damage fact: the notary agency and its notary cause the damage to the notarial parties or the interests of the notarial matters, that is, the occurrence of the notary loss; the causation is composed of the notarial structure and its notarial fault duty behavior and notarization. There is a cause and effect relationship between the parties to the parties and the notarial interests of the interested parties. The 4 elements above must be held at the same time when identifying the liability for notary compensation. If any of the above 4 elements are missing, the notary institutions and their notaries will not be liable for any liability.
The second chapter is a comparative study of the system of notarial compensation, mainly the notary compensation system of France and Germany in the continental law system, the American notarial compensation system in Anglo American legal system and the notarial compensation system of Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan in our country. The second part is mainly the practice and overall evaluation of the notary compensation system in our country, thus pointing out the public of our country. In the reform of notary system and notarial legislation, the theory and system design of the system of Latin notarization represented by French notarization is learned and learned. However, it should be seen that our social conditions are different from France, especially in the legal environment our country is far behind the law at present. Our country can not copy the successful experience of France. There should be different treatment in different social stages. Some scholars believe that the continental law can not comply with the social needs well, but the Anglo American law can flexibly cope with social changes, and it is natural to choose both the continental law and the Anglo American Law in the notary compensation system model.
The third chapter is on the basis of the first two chapters on the improvement of the notary compensation system of our country to put forward a little view: the unified responsibility subject: in our country, there are three kinds of Public Notarization Institutions in the form of administrative, cause and cooperation in China. In theory, the responsibility subject of the three kinds of system should be different; but based on the theory, The maintenance of the rights and interests of the parties is more appropriate to be unified by the notary office as the main body of responsibility. But it does not eliminate the legal liability of the notary personnel with the act of fault. The scope of compensation is: from the point of view of the duty of notarization, the standard of whether there is a fault or not should be the obligation of the notary agency or notary. And responsibilities, and these duties and duties are determined by legal provisions or notarial norms; a double penalty system for establishing liability is a combination of civil liability and administrative responsibility. When the notary is based on the fault, the notary shall not only compensate for the loss of the interests of the party, and then it may then be notarized by a deliberate or major negligence. The administrative responsibility of the notary institutions and the notary public notaries should also be punished by the administrative responsibility of the practice discipline to show punishment; improve the compensation system; the joint and several liability in the notary compensation: one is the joint liability of the notary and the examiner, the assistant of the notary; and the second is the joint liability of the notary and the translator, printing and archival managers; The third is the joint and several liability of the principal agent, which is due to the deposit and other business; the author thinks that the procedure of the notary compensation should have the two procedures of the internal relief procedure and the procedural relief procedure for the parties to choose; the rational distribution of the burden of proof: according to the principle of "who advocates, who holds the certificate", the notary compensation applicant or the notary public The interested parties of the matters should testify to the three important elements of the notary agency's illegal acts in the process of notarization, the result of the damage, the cause and effect of the illegal behavior and the result of the damage; increase the provisions on the exemption of the time of time and strengthen the construction of the professional ethics of the notary personnel.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D926.6;D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉崴;;公證機(jī)構(gòu)在社會管理創(chuàng)新中的職能定位[J];中國司法;2011年07期

2 戚振華;;公證機(jī)構(gòu)核實(shí)權(quán)辨析[J];中國司法;2011年06期

3 ;《公證誠信論》出版發(fā)行[J];中國公證;2011年06期

4 孟宇亮;;電子郵件保管箱——對公證機(jī)構(gòu)建立數(shù)據(jù)電文服務(wù)中心的探索[J];中國公證;2011年07期

5 金濤;;試論我國公證管轄制度——從浙江省高級法院建議公證機(jī)構(gòu)放開公證管轄說開去[J];中國公證;2011年07期

6 胡永剛;;公證員視角下的事實(shí)認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];中國公證;2011年05期

7 張衛(wèi)平;;公證證明效力研究(上)[J];中國公證;2011年06期

8 孫曉龍;;公證核實(shí)研究[J];中國司法;2011年06期

9 ;新疆公證行業(yè)慶祝建黨90周年紅歌會[J];中國公證;2011年07期

10 ;媒體反饋[J];中國公證;2011年05期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 顧云卿;;廉政建設(shè)與公證法律制度[A];激濁揚(yáng)清——廉政文化研討會論文集[C];1999年

2 許俊強(qiáng);;民事訴訟域外證據(jù)證明制度之檢討——以《關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)的若干規(guī)定》第十一條為中心[A];2008全國博士生學(xué)術(shù)論壇（國際法）論文集——國際公法、國際私法分冊[C];2008年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 吳坤;公證法解讀[N];法制日報(bào);2005年

2 記者 陳穎慧;運(yùn)用公證法維護(hù)公民合法權(quán)益[N];延邊日報(bào);2009年

3 趙繼釗;我市貫徹執(zhí)行《公證法》顯現(xiàn)成效[N];太原日報(bào);2009年

4 周文奎 陳秀峰 靳思穎;《公證法》的缺失及其完善[N];中國聯(lián)合商報(bào);2009年

5 本報(bào)記者 劉亞群;公證守護(hù)社會和諧[N];安徽日報(bào);2010年

6 記者 李廣軍　通訊員 劉孟龍;去年以來辦理公證5萬件[N];長沙晚報(bào);2010年

7 吳學(xué)安;行政不能強(qiáng)制要求公證[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)參考報(bào);2010年

8 記者 盧志堅(jiān)　通訊員 葛東升 高儉;砍刀底下簽合同 即便公證又如何[N];檢察日報(bào);2010年

9 李小云;我市公證事業(yè)社會“減震器”作用成效顯著[N];黃山日報(bào);2010年

10 濟(jì)南市司法局黨組書記 局長 龔秋水;全面貫徹實(shí)施《公證法》 做好新形勢下的公證工作[N];濟(jì)南日報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 那淑偉;公證的公信力研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

2 孫紅梅;公證—一種預(yù)防性的法律證明制度[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

3 蔣篤恒;公證制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2002年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 韓燁;公證民事賠償制度法律研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

2 吳奕晗;論公證賠償制度[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

3 馮磊;公證價(jià)值論[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年

4 郭儀瑋;不動產(chǎn)登記中的公證問題分析[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2012年

5 劉瑤;物權(quán)變動中的法定公證制度探析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

6 王洪義;公證過程中的法律思維[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

7 吳曉燁;試論我國現(xiàn)代公證制度[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2001年

8 王京;論我國公證制度的公權(quán)性[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2005年

9 吳逶;我國公證制度若干問題的法哲學(xué)思考[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

10 胡月;論公證錯證[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2092850