【摘要】：加害給付制度最開始產(chǎn)生于德國(guó)的學(xué)說(shuō)理論。加害給付作為一種不正確踐行債務(wù)之形態(tài),不但一定會(huì)導(dǎo)致權(quán)利方原本具有的權(quán)益遭受侵害,而且同時(shí)具有侵害權(quán)利方合同權(quán)益的可能性,因此具有侵權(quán)和違約雙重法律性質(zhì)。在當(dāng)前個(gè)人本位讓位于社會(huì)本位、公法不斷干預(yù)私法的社會(huì)大背景下,合同體系的不斷擴(kuò)張導(dǎo)致侵權(quán)法與合同法的界限變得愈加模糊不清。加害給付作為侵權(quán)責(zé)任與合同責(zé)任的邊際問題,日益成為各國(guó)合同法發(fā)展普遍面臨的問題,在實(shí)踐中也頗具爭(zhēng)議。按照我國(guó)的一貫堅(jiān)持的法理學(xué)說(shuō)和相關(guān)司法實(shí)踐,對(duì)加害給付受害人的保護(hù)方式采用的是責(zé)任競(jìng)合的模式,當(dāng)事人僅可從侵權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)或違約請(qǐng)求權(quán)二選一要求加害人承擔(dān)責(zé)任,而且在合同之訴中原則上不能請(qǐng)求對(duì)非物質(zhì)損害的補(bǔ)償,對(duì)給付本身以外的其他財(cái)產(chǎn)損失當(dāng)事人也僅可依據(jù)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法之規(guī)定得到相應(yīng)補(bǔ)償。與此同時(shí),在對(duì)加害給付中受害第三人的救濟(jì)和第三人實(shí)施加害給付的責(zé)任承擔(dān)問題上,我國(guó)的立法規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐也不盡完善。因此,厘清加害給付的相關(guān)理論和制度,為受害人提供周全的法律救濟(jì),是本文撰寫的目的所在。文章梳理了加害給付制度的產(chǎn)生和演變脈絡(luò),借以探究加害給付制度產(chǎn)生的初衷,并系統(tǒng)介紹了加害給付的定義、分類和構(gòu)成要件,以便形成對(duì)該制度的整體認(rèn)識(shí)。在這基礎(chǔ)上,下文主要以健全對(duì)當(dāng)事人的救濟(jì)為中心展開論述。通過(guò)介紹當(dāng)前我國(guó)對(duì)加害給付法律救濟(jì)的立法規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐,指出加害給付傳統(tǒng)法律救濟(jì)的不足之處,并進(jìn)一步對(duì)其原因作深入分析。在提出問題和分析問題之后,本文最后在立足于我國(guó)具體實(shí)際的基礎(chǔ)上,通過(guò)總結(jié)學(xué)者、專家的觀點(diǎn)和有目的性地借鑒國(guó)外先進(jìn)經(jīng)驗(yàn),主要從三個(gè)角度就如何健全對(duì)受害人之法律救濟(jì)發(fā)表自己的一些淺薄見解,以期對(duì)我們今后建立并健全該法律制度提供提供相關(guān)借鑒。
[Abstract]:The system of injurious compensation originated from the theory of Germany. As a form of incorrect practice of debt, injurious payment will not only lead to the infringement of the rights and interests of the right party, but also the possibility of infringement of the rights and interests of the right party, so it has the dual legal nature of infringement and breach of contract. Under the social background of individual standard giving way to social standard and public law interfering with private law, the boundary between tort law and contract law becomes more and more blurred due to the continuous expansion of contract system. As the marginal problem of tort liability and contract liability, injurious payment has increasingly become a common problem in the development of contract law in various countries, and is also controversial in practice. According to our country's consistent theory of jurisprudence and relevant judicial practice, the mode of protection for the victims of injurious payment is the mode of concurrence of responsibilities. The parties may only choose one of the two claims for tort or breach of contract to assume responsibility. Moreover, in principle, compensation for non-material damage can not be claimed in the litigation of contract, and the parties who have lost property other than the payment itself can only get corresponding compensation according to the provisions of tort liability law. At the same time, the legislation and judicial practice of our country are not perfect on the relief of the third party and the responsibility of the third party. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to clarify the relevant theory and system of injurious pay and provide comprehensive legal relief for the victim. This article combs the origin and evolution of the injurious compensation system, in order to probe into the original intention of the injurious compensation system, and systematically introduces the definition, classification and constitutive elements of the injurious compensation system, in order to form the overall understanding of the system. On this basis, the following mainly to improve the relief of the parties as the center of the discussion. This paper introduces the legislative provisions and judicial practice of legal relief for injurious payment in our country at present, points out the shortcomings of traditional legal relief for injurious payment, and further analyzes its causes. After putting forward and analyzing the problems, this paper finally draws lessons from the advanced experience of foreign countries by summing up the views of scholars and experts and drawing on the advanced experience of foreign countries based on the concrete reality of our country. Mainly from three angles on how to improve the legal relief to the victims of their own shallow views, in order to provide us with reference to the establishment and perfection of the legal system in the future.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華僑大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 杜彪;論加害給付制度及其立法完善[J];重慶商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年01期

2 丁鳳楚,方東;加害給付與民事責(zé)任競(jìng)合學(xué)說(shuō)探析——新《合同法》第122條的由來(lái)[J];前沿;2000年10期

3 蔡代鵬;小議“加害給付”[J];甘肅行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

4 唐孝輝;加害給付制度相關(guān)問題探討[J];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年03期

5 張良;加害給付新探[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

6 季必友;劉勝軍;;論對(duì)加害給付的救濟(jì)[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2006年02期

7 劉海山;周輝玉;;論加害給付損害賠償[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年05期

8 林海榕;;加害給付救濟(jì)制度研究[J];福建教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年10期

9 宋霞;;加害給付問題研究[J];山西經(jīng)濟(jì)管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年04期

10 原永紅;;論加害給付及其責(zé)任[J];理論學(xué)刊;2009年08期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 吳言霞;加害給付的救濟(jì)方式分析[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2011年

2 吳春輝;加害給付如何適用《合同法》第122條[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 陳明芳;加害給付研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

2 劉艷東;加害給付中的請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合研究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2009年

3 熊德昌;加害給付研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2002年

4 孫亞臣;論加害給付采用聚合責(zé)任的合理性[D];貴州大學(xué);2007年

5 莫曉唏;加害給付之研究[D];湖南大學(xué);2008年

6 袁政凱;論加害給付[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

7 張娜;加害給付救濟(jì)路徑探討[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2015年

8 門小雨;論加害給付中產(chǎn)品自身?yè)p害的救濟(jì)措施[D];天津師范大學(xué);2016年

9 張麗君;論加害給付的法律救濟(jì)[D];華僑大學(xué);2015年

10 李婧;加害給付法律問題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：2311470