本文選題：婚外同居 + 婚外同居贈與　； 參考：《東北財經(jīng)大學》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：2010年11月《最高人民法院關(guān)于適用中華人民共和國婚姻法若干問題的解釋(三)》征求意見稿第二條規(guī)定:"有配偶者與他人同居,為解除同居關(guān)系約定了財產(chǎn)性補償,一方要求支付該補償或支付補償后反悔主張返還的,人民法院不予支持;但合法婚姻當事人以侵犯夫妻共同財產(chǎn)權(quán)為由起訴主張返還的,人民法院應(yīng)當受理并根據(jù)具體情況作出處理。"這是我國第一次對婚外同居贈與有關(guān)問題進行規(guī)定。但是由于該規(guī)定過于籠統(tǒng)且簡單,并不能解決實踐中婚外同居贈與的復(fù)雜情況,因此在最終出臺的正式稿中刪除了此條規(guī)定。在沒有法律規(guī)定支撐的前提下,如何認定婚外同居贈與效力眾說紛紜。理論界對此主要分為五種學說,即有效說、以動機區(qū)分效力說、部分有效說、無效說與按自然債務(wù)處理。有效說將婚外同居關(guān)系與贈與關(guān)系區(qū)別對待,認為婚外同居贈與實為《合同法》上的贈與合同,只要贈與為贈與人真實意思表示,婚外同居贈與即為有效;以動機區(qū)分效力說認為贈與是否有效要以贈與人的行為動機作為判斷標準,若動機違反公序良俗原則,贈與無效,若動機符合公共秩序與善良風俗,贈與有效;部分有效說指出,夫妻共同財產(chǎn)為一人一半按份共有,若婚外同居贈與的財產(chǎn)內(nèi)容涉及到夫妻共同財產(chǎn),那么屬于贈與人財產(chǎn)的那部分贈與有效,屬于贈與人配偶合法財產(chǎn)的那部分贈與無效;無效說則主張婚外同居贈與違反法律與公序良俗原則應(yīng)判無效;按自然債務(wù)處理將婚外同居贈與等同于自然債,認為法院不應(yīng)當給予任何保護。理論界判定婚外同居贈與是否有效往往僅從財產(chǎn)法或是否違反公序良俗角度孤立看待該問題,沒有權(quán)威結(jié)論,不能為司法實踐提供有力的裁判依據(jù)。面對法律的真空地帶,法官在審理這些案件時往往根據(jù)自己的經(jīng)驗作出判決,致使在司法實踐中出現(xiàn)法律適用不統(tǒng)一的局面。本文筆者運用實證分析、比較分析的方法從新的角度出發(fā),重新審視婚外同居贈與效力判斷問題。本文在結(jié)構(gòu)上除緒論和結(jié)語外主要分為五個部分。第一部分筆者在具體介紹"甘甲任夫婦訴盧小燕返還房屋糾紛案"的基礎(chǔ)上,整理列舉了 2001年至2015年間法院認定婚外同居贈與效力情況的典型案例,歸納得出案件爭議點,即本文的研究重心——婚外同居贈與的效力問題,同時界定了婚外同居的概念并將其與非婚同居、重婚等相近概念進行辨析,明確婚外同居并不等同于生活中人們所說的非婚同居或重婚,且在歸納婚外同居贈與類型的基礎(chǔ)上指出婚外同居贈與的性質(zhì)是涉及身份關(guān)系的財產(chǎn)行為,這是本文寫作的基礎(chǔ);第二部分闡述關(guān)于婚外同居贈與效力認定的理論學說,包括有效說、以動機區(qū)分效力說、部分有效說、無效說等,并對各學說進行評析,分析其不足之處;第三部分總結(jié)德國、法國以及我國臺灣地區(qū)婚外同居贈與效力認定的司法實踐,得出其效力判斷依據(jù),即應(yīng)考察贈與人行為動機;第四部分是本文的核心部分,筆者通過借鑒域外有益經(jīng)驗,避免現(xiàn)有理論學說的不足之處,對婚外同居贈與效力認定的方法和原則提出自己的觀點,即將婚外同居贈與依據(jù)財產(chǎn)性質(zhì)分為三種不同類型,對每種類型的婚外同居贈與的效力認定依據(jù)不同的判定標準,并在此基礎(chǔ)上確定舉證責任的分配原則;第五部分筆者對婚外同居贈與效力認定后的有效婚外同居贈與及無效婚外同居贈與所涉的財產(chǎn)如何處理問題進行討論,并著重闡述了處理無效婚外同居贈與財產(chǎn)問題的核心方法即不法原因給付制度,同時提出將贈與財產(chǎn)為價值較大的夫妻共同財產(chǎn)的婚外同居贈與納入《婚姻法解釋(三)》第4條第1款規(guī)定的解釋當中,通過婚內(nèi)財產(chǎn)分割保護贈與人配偶一方的合法財產(chǎn)權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:In November 2010, the Supreme People's court's interpretation of several questions on the application of the marriage law of People's Republic of China (three) > second articles of solicitation: "the spouse of a spouse cohabited with another, agreed to make a property compensation for the dissolution of the cohabitation relationship, and the people's court refused to support the return of the claim after the payment of the compensation or payment of compensation." However, the people's court shall accept and deal with the case in accordance with the specific circumstances. "This is the first time in our country to stipulate the issues relating to marriage and cohabitation for the first time. However, because the provision is too general and simple, it can not solve the complex gift of marriage outside the marriage." Miscellaneous circumstances, therefore, in the final release of the article deleted the provisions. Without the premise of legal provisions, how to determine how to determine the effectiveness of the marital cohabitation and the effectiveness of different opinions. The theoretical circle is divided into five theories, that is, to effectively say, to distinguish the effectiveness of motivation, partly effective, invalid and according to natural debt. The relationship between marriage cohabitation and the relationship of gift is different from that of the gift. It is believed that the gift of cohabitation is actually a gift contract in the contract law. As long as the gift is the true meaning of the gift, the gift of cohabitation outside the marriage is effective. The good custom principle, the gift is invalid, if the motive conforms to the public order and the good custom, the gift is effective; the part effectively says that the husband and wife's common property is shared by one person in half, if the property content of the congruent gift outside the marriage involves the common property of the husband and wife, then the part of the gift belonging to the gift is valid and belongs to the legal property of the spouse's spouse. That part of the gift is invalid; ineffective is to claim that the marriage cohabitation gift should be ineffective in violation of the law and the public order and good custom principle. According to the natural debt treatment, the gift of cohabitation is equal to the natural debt. It is considered that the court should not give any protection. The theorists judge whether the marriage cohabitation gift is effective only from the property law or whether it violates the public order. There are no authoritative conclusions and no authoritative conclusions, which can not provide a strong referee basis for judicial practice. In the face of the vacuum zone of the law, judges often make judgments according to their own experience in hearing these cases, resulting in the situation of legal application in judicial practice. The author uses empirical analysis to compare the differences. From a new point of view, the author reexamines the problem of judging the effectiveness of the gift of cohabitation outside of marriage. This article is divided into five parts in structure, except the introduction and conclusion. The first part, on the basis of the specific introduction of "Gan Jiaren and Mrs. Lu Xiao Yan return to housing disputes", enumerates the marriage outside the court from 2001 to 2015. A typical case of cohabitation grant effectiveness is summed up, that is, the focus of the study, that is, the issue of the effectiveness of the gift of cohabitation outside marriage. At the same time, the concept of cohabitation outside marriage is defined and the similar concepts such as unmarried cohabitation and bigamy are identified, and it is clear that cohabitation outside marriage is not equal to the non marital cohabitation said in life. Bigamy, and on the basis of the type of cohabitation giving out of marriage out of marriage, points out that the nature of marriage cohabitation gift is the property behavior involving identity relations, which is the basis of this article. The second part expounds the theoretical theory about the determination of the effectiveness of the gift of cohabitation outside marriage, including the effective theory, part effective, invalid, and so on. Each theory is evaluated and analyzed. The third part summarizes the judicial practice of determining the effectiveness of the gift of cohabitation in Germany, France and Taiwan, and draws the basis of its effectiveness judgment, that is to examine the motivation of the donor's behavior; the fourth part is the core part of this article, and the author avoids the existing theory by drawing on the useful experience from foreign countries. The inadequacies of the theory, put forward their own views on the methods and principles of the determination of the effectiveness of the gift of marriage outside marriage. It is about three different types according to the property nature of the marriage cohabitation gift, and the determination of the effectiveness of each type of extramarital cohabitation is based on the different criteria, and on this basis, the distribution principle of the burden of proof is determined; Fifth The author discusses the problem of how to deal with the property involved in the effective marriage cohabitation gift and the non effective marriage cohabitation gift, and emphasizes the core method of dealing with the problem of the inhabitation gift and property outside the marriage. The marriage extramarital cohabitation of the wife's common property is included in the interpretation of the interpretation of the marriage law interpretation (three) and the fourth provisions of the first paragraphs. The legal property rights and interests of the spouse of the donor are protected by the division of the marital property.
【學位授予單位】：東北財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.9

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄒娟;;公序良俗原則適用的正當性論證[J];法制博覽;2016年05期

2 趙玉;;司法視域下夫妻財產(chǎn)制的價值轉(zhuǎn)向[J];中國法學;2016年01期

3 李巖;;公序良俗原則的司法亂象與本相——兼論公序良俗原則適用的類型化[J];法學;2015年11期

4 陳信勇;;身份法視角下的婚外同居補償協(xié)議[J];法治研究;2014年09期

5 趙雪純;;遺囑自由與公序良俗之爭——從張學英訴蔣倫芳案談起[J];法制與社會;2014年13期

6 唐浪;;從瀘州遺贈案談法律規(guī)則和法律原則[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬);2014年04期

7 丁曉雨;馬群;尤愛恒;;淺析第三者侵犯配偶權(quán)的法律規(guī)制[J];法制與社會;2014年08期

8 田韶華;;夫妻問贈與的若干法律問題[J];法學;2014年02期

9 丁慧;;身份行為基本理論的再認識[J];法學雜志;2013年01期

10 李和平;;論民法對單方法律行為的控制[J];法學雜志;2012年08期

，

本文編號：2100998