本文選題：死亡賠償金 + 死亡賠償金性質(zhì)�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：死亡賠償金作為死亡損害賠償中的最重要的一部分,關(guān)乎到受害人及其家庭的損失是否得到妥善的賠償,同時也反映了一個國家文明程度及人權(quán)保護的力度,一直以來備受人們的關(guān)注。而在涉及死亡賠償金的諸多問題中,對其歸屬問題的討論相對較少。法律對該問題的規(guī)定也比較模糊,只規(guī)定死者的近親屬享有死亡賠償金請求權(quán),而對死者的哪些近親屬享有該權(quán)利及在死者有不止一個近親屬的時候如何分配;除此之外,是否還有人享有死亡賠償金請求權(quán);在死者近親屬無法查明或者缺失的情況下,誰可以請求死亡賠償金等等問題都沒有做出明確的規(guī)定。這導(dǎo)致法官在審判相關(guān)案件的時候,由于沒有明確的法律依據(jù),從而出現(xiàn)同案不同判的現(xiàn)象,不僅導(dǎo)致受害人家庭因死亡賠償金歸屬問題不斷纏訟,有損家庭和睦,還損害了法律的公正性與權(quán)威性。因此,研究死亡賠償金的歸屬問題并制定明確的法律規(guī)定是司法實踐的迫切需要,也是人民群眾的殷切希望。本文通過對死亡賠償金歸屬問題的研究,提出解決該問題的方案,希望可以為完善我國的死亡賠償金制度提供有價值的建議。本文共分為以下五個部分:第一部分是導(dǎo)言,主要介紹了選題的背景和意義、文獻綜述、主要研究方法、論文結(jié)構(gòu)以及論文主要創(chuàng)新和不足。死亡賠償金歸屬問題的研究對完善我國生命權(quán)救濟制度有著重要的作用,死亡賠償金歸屬問題的解決,有利于化解受害人家庭成員之間的矛盾,維護受害人家庭的和睦,也有利于維護法律的公平正義與權(quán)威性。本文主要采用實證調(diào)查法、歷史研究法、比較研究法等研究方法,分析現(xiàn)有的案例及學(xué)說,總結(jié)歸納其中的問題,在前人研究的基礎(chǔ)上提出自己的觀點,希望對死亡賠償金歸屬問題的解決有所助益。第二部分論述了死亡賠償金的性質(zhì)。死亡賠償金的性質(zhì)決定了死亡賠償金歸屬問題的解決,作為死亡賠償金歸屬問題的先決問題,必須要予以明確。本文在對我國關(guān)于死亡賠償金制度立法的演變的分析以及對學(xué)者們提出的有關(guān)死亡賠償金性質(zhì)的學(xué)說的分析基礎(chǔ)上,從明確死亡賠償金的請求權(quán)主體及賠償范圍入手,分析得出死亡賠償金的性質(zhì)。死亡賠償金是對生命的矯正價值的賠償,通過對死者近親屬的賠償完成對生命權(quán)的救濟。第三部分論述了一般情形中的死亡賠償金的歸屬。通過對法院審理的有關(guān)死亡賠償金歸屬問題的案例進行分析,對法官在審理相關(guān)案件時的做法進行歸納總結(jié),結(jié)合我國相關(guān)法律的規(guī)定以及學(xué)者們提出的觀點,提出完善我國死亡賠償金歸屬問題的立法建議。在一般情形中,應(yīng)該尊重當(dāng)事人的意思自治,當(dāng)事人有協(xié)議的,在協(xié)議不違反法律法規(guī)的情況下,應(yīng)該優(yōu)先適用當(dāng)事人之間的協(xié)議。當(dāng)事人沒有協(xié)議的,應(yīng)該優(yōu)先將被扶養(yǎng)人生活費從死亡賠償金中分離出來,判決歸相關(guān)權(quán)利人享有,剩余的死亡賠償金由死者的近親屬共同共有。對死者的近親屬進行分類,分為第一順序的請求權(quán)人和第二順序的請求權(quán)人,其中第一順序的請求權(quán)人包括配偶、子女和父母,第二順序的請求權(quán)人包括祖父母、外祖父母、孫子女、外孫子女、兄弟姐妹,第一順序請求權(quán)人優(yōu)先于第二順序請求權(quán)人,在第一順序請求權(quán)人存在的情況下,第二順位請求權(quán)人無權(quán)要求侵權(quán)人支付死亡賠償金。在第一順位請求權(quán)人中,應(yīng)該綜合考慮與死者生前關(guān)系的緊密程度,是否與死者共同居住,是否有固定收入,經(jīng)濟狀況如何,健康狀況如何,死者的父母有幾個子女可以實際贍養(yǎng),死者的父母是否離異,是否有退休工資,死者的配偶與死者結(jié)婚年限,死者子女是否已經(jīng)成年,是否已經(jīng)畢業(yè)等等因素,由法官自由裁量死亡賠償金的分配比例,在保證公平公正的同時照顧未成年人和老年人及喪失勞動能力的人的利益,確保他們的生活不會因為死者的離去造成太大的影響。第四部分論述了若干特殊情形中的死亡賠償金歸屬問題。主要討論了債權(quán)人是否可以請求用死亡賠償金償還債務(wù),同居者能否分得死亡賠償金,是否應(yīng)該保留胎兒份額及無名氏的死亡賠償金歸屬問題等四種情況,并對這四種情況進行分析得出解決方案。由于死亡賠償金是對生命矯正價值的賠償,具有人身專屬性質(zhì),所以債權(quán)人不能從中受償,除非死者的近親屬全部同意用死亡賠償金償還債務(wù)。如果同居者能夠證明與死者以夫妻名義共同生活,那么法官可以酌情判給同居者部分死亡賠償金,但是如果同居者明知他人有配偶而與其同居,則不能分得死亡賠償金。在分配死亡賠償金過程中,應(yīng)該保留胎兒的份額,胎兒終將出生成為人,理應(yīng)受到保護。應(yīng)該由檢察院代替無名氏的近親屬向侵權(quán)人主張死亡賠償金,在查明無名氏的近親屬后歸還無名氏的近親屬,如果無名氏沒有近親屬,那么國家享有該死亡賠償金,納入社會救助基金管理。第五部分總結(jié)整篇論文并概括本文的中心論題,最終得出結(jié)論。我國現(xiàn)行的死亡賠償金制度還處在一個落后的發(fā)展?fàn)顟B(tài),沒有明確規(guī)定死亡賠償金的性質(zhì)及歸屬,學(xué)者們對此也爭議較大,沒有形成統(tǒng)一的觀點,導(dǎo)致法官在審理死亡賠償金歸屬問題的案子時無法可依,審判結(jié)果千差萬別,不僅嚴重損害了我國法律的權(quán)威性,還使得我國好不容易樹立起來的公平公正的法治理念受到嚴重挑戰(zhàn)。因此,研究死亡賠償金的性質(zhì)及歸屬問題可以為現(xiàn)在混亂的司法審判提供有益的指導(dǎo),有利于解決受害人家庭與侵權(quán)人之間的矛盾以及受害人家庭內(nèi)部之間因爭奪死亡賠償金產(chǎn)生的矛盾,有利于豐富有關(guān)生命權(quán)救濟的學(xué)說,使得生命權(quán)得到更好的救濟,還有利于完善我國死亡賠償金制度的立法及相關(guān)司法解釋的制定。
[Abstract]:As the most important part of the compensation for death damage, the death compensation is related to the proper compensation for the loss of the victims and their families. At the same time, it also reflects the degree of civilization and the protection of human rights. The provisions of the law are relatively few. The provisions of the law are also obscure, which only stipulates that the close relatives of the deceased are entitled to the claim for death compensation, and how the close relatives of the deceased are entitled to the right and how to distribute it when the deceased has more than one close relatives; in addition, there is a person who has the right to claim the death compensation; and near the deceased. If the relatives can not find out or missing, who can ask for the death compensation and so on, there is no clear regulation. This leads to the judge in the trial of the related cases, because there is no clear legal basis, thus the phenomenon of the same case is different, not only causes the victim family to be entangled in the problem of death compensation. It is harmful to the harmony of the family and the impartiality and authority of the law. Therefore, the study of the attribution of the death compensation and the formulation of a clear legal provision are the urgent needs of the judicial practice and the eagerly hope of the people. This paper, through the study of the problem of the attribution of death compensation, proposes a solution to the problem and hopes that it can be solved. This article is divided into five parts: the first part is the introduction, which mainly introduces the background and significance of the topic, the literature review, the main research methods, the structure of the paper and the main innovation and deficiency of the thesis. The relief system has an important role. The settlement of the problem of the attribution of the death compensation is conducive to resolving the contradictions among the family members of the victims, maintaining the harmony of the families of the victims, and maintaining the justice and authority of the law. This article mainly adopts the empirical investigation method, the history study method, the comparative study method and so on, and analyzes the existing methods. In the second part, the nature of the death compensation is discussed. The nature of the death compensation determines the settlement of the problem of the attribution of the death compensation, as the attribution of the death compensation. On the basis of the analysis of the evolution of the legislation of the death compensation system in our country and the analysis of the theory of the nature of the death compensation proposed by the scholars, this paper analyzes the nature of the death compensation from the definition of the subject of the claim of the death compensation and the scope of the compensation. The death compensation is the compensation for the correction value of life. The third part expounds the attribution of the death compensation in the general situation. Through the analysis of the cases of the attribution of the death compensation to the court, the practice of the judge in the case of hearing the related cases is analyzed. In general, the party should respect the autonomy of the parties, and the parties have agreement. In the case that the agreement does not violate the laws and regulations, the parties should be given priority to the application of the parties. Agreement. If the parties do not have agreement, they should give priority to the separation of the living expenses of the dependants from the death compensation, and the judgment shall be enjoyed by the relevant rights holders. The remaining death compensation shall be shared by the close relatives of the deceased. The order of the right holders include spouses, children and parents, and the second order of the right holders include grandparents, grandparents, grandchildren, grandchildren, brothers and sisters, the first order right holders are given priority to the right person in the order of second. In the case of the first order right person, the second right person is not entitled to claim the tortfeasor. To pay the death compensation. In the first place of the right person, we should consider the close relationship with the dead, whether there is a fixed income with the deceased, whether there is a fixed income, the economic situation, the health condition, the parents of the deceased, whether the parents of the dead are divorced, whether there are retirement wages, the dead, and the dead. The years of marriage between the spouse and the deceased, the adult children of the deceased, whether they have graduated or not, and so on, the judges are free to determine the proportion of the compensation for the death compensation, and to ensure the interests of the minors and the elderly and the people who have lost the ability to work at the same time, to ensure that their lives will not be caused by the departure of the dead. The fourth part discusses the attribution of the death compensation in some special cases. It mainly discusses whether the creditor can ask for the repayment of the debt by the death compensation, whether the cohabiting person can obtain the death compensation, whether it should retain the fetal share and the attribution of the infamous death compensation and so on, and the four kinds of cases. The situation carries out an analysis of the solution. Since the death compensation is a compensation for the value of life correction, it has the exclusive nature of the person, so the creditor can not be paid from it, unless the close relatives of the dead agree to pay the debt with the death compensation. If the cohabitation can prove that the deceased is living together in the name of the husband and wife, the judge may In order to judge the partial death compensation of the cohabiting person, but if the cohabiting person knows that the other person has a spouse and cohabitation, it can not get the death compensation. In the process of distributing the death compensation, the share of the fetus should be retained and the fetus will be born into a person. In the fifth part, the fifth part summarizes the whole thesis and summarizes the central topic of this article, and finally draws a conclusion. The degree is still in a backward state of development, and the nature and attribution of the death compensation are not clearly defined. The scholars have also disputed about it, and have not formed a unified view. The judge can not be able to rely on the case of hearing the attribution of the death compensation, and the result of the trial is thousands of different, not only seriously damaging the authority of the law in our country, but also seriously damaging the authority of our country. The concept of a fair and just rule of law in China is seriously challenged. Therefore, the study of the nature and ownership of the death compensation can provide useful guidance for the present confusing judicial trial, which is conducive to the solution of the spear between the victims' families and the infringers, as well as the struggle for death between the victims' families. The contradiction arising from the death compensation is beneficial to enriching the theory of the right to life relief, making the right to life better remedied, and improving the legislation of our country's death compensation system and the formulation of relevant judicial interpretations.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 傅蔚岡;;“同命不同價”中的法與理——關(guān)于死亡賠償金制度的反思[J];法學(xué);2006年09期

2 廖華政;朱偉;繆運華;;死亡賠償金 母親也有份[J];道路交通管理;2006年10期

3 周秀華;;淺議死亡賠償金[J];銅陵職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年03期

4 亞新;;出嫁女也可分享兄弟的死亡賠償金[J];黨的建設(shè);2007年07期

5 胡忠煥;裴丹;;我國死亡賠償金制度之檢討[J];理論觀察;2007年04期

6 王佳茹;;對死亡賠償金中“同命不同價”規(guī)定的若干思考[J];法制與社會;2007年11期

7 文亮;;論設(shè)立統(tǒng)一規(guī)范公平的死亡賠償金制度[J];科學(xué)之友(B版);2008年04期

8 李碧峰;趙俊;;關(guān)于死亡賠償金性質(zhì)的思考[J];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院學(xué)報;2008年02期

9 張楠;;從“同命不同價”反思我國的死亡賠償金制度[J];法制與社會;2008年26期

10 袁仕友;;丈夫的死亡賠償金屬于遺產(chǎn)嗎[J];湖南農(nóng)業(yè);2009年06期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 胡曉軍;管收年;;死亡賠償金不能作為遺產(chǎn)繼承的分析[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（2010年第4輯）[C];2010年

2 周菊蘭;陳鶯;;走向模糊——基于死亡補償金的研究[A];2007年江蘇省哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)界學(xué)術(shù)大會論文集（上）[C];2007年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 張錦海 趙旭;死亡賠償金是死者的遺產(chǎn)嗎？[N];江蘇法制報;2005年

2 俞 輝;死亡賠償金有遺產(chǎn)屬性[N];人民法院報;2005年

3 張錦武;死亡賠償金爭奪引起的思考[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2010年

4 張雪巖 張俊龍;死亡賠償金不宜視為遺產(chǎn)[N];檢察日報;2012年

5 錢宏祥 王蒙;人損案件死亡賠償金分配存在“三難三多”[N];人民法院報;2012年

6 特約撰稿 文彬 海潤公司法律顧問;法院如何計算死亡賠償金[N];民主與法制時報;2013年

7 曾煜華;死亡賠償金性質(zhì)分析[N];江蘇法制報;2013年

8 蘇志鑫;死亡賠償金不可作為遺產(chǎn)執(zhí)行[N];江蘇法制報;2013年

9 尹志強;死亡賠償金的性質(zhì)[N];法制日報;2005年

10 ;死亡賠償金應(yīng)如何分割[N];江蘇法制報;2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 陳瓊;我國死亡賠償金制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

2 郭慶輝;死亡賠償金制度研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2009年

3 林蘭貞;死亡賠償金法律問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

4 華林;死亡賠償金標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2009年

5 王金貴;死亡賠償金制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

6 李木子;論我國死亡賠償金法律制度的完善[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

7 周燕;死亡賠償金法律問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

8 廖靜怡;我國死亡賠償金制度的法理探析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

9 秦佳;死亡賠償金法律問題研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2007年

10 李健;論死亡賠償金及其法律制度完善[D];西南大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：1896679