發(fā)布時間：2017-12-26 19:02

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：我國遺囑信托受益人權(quán)利保護研究　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 遺囑信托 受益權(quán) 受益人撤銷權(quán) 遺囑信托公示

【摘要】：遺囑信托為委托人(立遺囑人)生前以遺囑方式,將其財產(chǎn)之全部或一部分為受益人之利益移轉(zhuǎn)于受托人,受托人依照信托目的管理、處分信托財產(chǎn),使得受益人享受信托財產(chǎn)利益的信托。其財產(chǎn)移轉(zhuǎn)和財產(chǎn)管理的功能,能夠靈活執(zhí)行委托人的意圖,更好的保護受益人權(quán)利,有效解決現(xiàn)行繼承制度框架下立遺囑人無法實現(xiàn)的特殊愿望,從而滿足人們的現(xiàn)實需求。遺囑信托制度的起源地是英美法系國家,遺囑信托這種即能避免繼承糾紛又能使財產(chǎn)永久留傳的獨特功能越來越受到其他國家的青睞,許多國家都紛紛移植遺囑信托制度,并有效融合于其法律體系中,如與我國同為大陸法系的日本、我國臺灣地區(qū)等。隨著我國人民財產(chǎn)不斷的增加,觀念的轉(zhuǎn)變,人們也越來越希望能夠運用遺囑信托解決遺產(chǎn)問題。但我國人民對于設(shè)立遺囑信托還不敢輕易嘗試,人們害怕一旦設(shè)立遺囑信托,遺囑信托財產(chǎn)移轉(zhuǎn)于受托人,自己不能監(jiān)管,如果受托人濫用權(quán)利,在我國現(xiàn)行法律制度下,受益人難以有效保護自己的利益,設(shè)立遺囑信托的目的將會落空。人們設(shè)立遺囑信托是為了受益人,受益人權(quán)益才是該制度的核心。英美信托財產(chǎn)的雙重所有權(quán)制度與我國的物權(quán)體系存在沖突,我國也不可能違背“一物一權(quán)”原則,所以在制定《信托法》時,運用“委托”一詞來代替信托財產(chǎn)的“移轉(zhuǎn)”,回避其所有權(quán)的歸屬,從而導(dǎo)致信托財產(chǎn)獨立性、信托當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)、受益權(quán)性質(zhì)等發(fā)生爭議。遺囑信托為特殊的信托,一般信托中信托財產(chǎn)獨立性、信托當(dāng)事人權(quán)利義務(wù)責(zé)任、信托受益人受益權(quán)性質(zhì)存在的問題同樣存在于遺囑信托中。此外,我國信托法賦予委托人的各項權(quán)利,因遺囑信托委托人的去世,而形同虛設(shè),從而大大的削弱了監(jiān)管力度。況且,其他配套制度(如遺囑信托公示制度、遺囑信托監(jiān)察人制度、信息披露制度)亦缺失的情況下,受托人更會任意妄為、濫用權(quán)利,最終受害的還是受益人。因此,我國有必要完善遺囑信托受益人權(quán)利保護制度。本文共分為三章:第一章“遺囑信托受益權(quán)概述”。該部分首先對受益權(quán)性質(zhì)進行了辨析,分析了英美國家和大陸法系國家(特別是日本)各種學(xué)說的優(yōu)點與缺點。指出英美法系受益權(quán)性質(zhì)學(xué)說,即“債權(quán)說”、“物權(quán)說”、“折衷說”,是在英美信托法有具體規(guī)定的基礎(chǔ)上展開的,其研究未超出信托受益權(quán)法定內(nèi)容的范圍,每種觀點都能得到支持,出現(xiàn)三種觀點,只是因為學(xué)者對于信托受益權(quán)表現(xiàn)出的不同性質(zhì)的重視程度不一樣而已。但大陸法系對信托法受益權(quán)的定性不是根據(jù)本國法律的明確規(guī)定,而是借鑒英美信托理論結(jié)合本國法律體系,通過發(fā)揮想象來進行研究。其次,簡述了受益權(quán)的內(nèi)容,即“信托財產(chǎn)收益的受給權(quán)”、“信托事務(wù)監(jiān)督權(quán)”、“違反信托的救濟權(quán)”。第二章“我國遺囑信托受益權(quán)保護的立法現(xiàn)狀及缺陷”。該部分首先對遺囑信托的構(gòu)造,從“人的要素”、“財產(chǎn)要素”、“連接要素”三方面進行了梳理。其次分析了我國遺囑信托受益權(quán)保護存在的五個問題:(1)遺囑信托受益人權(quán)利內(nèi)容不充分,特別是受益人享有救濟權(quán)中,存在著損害賠償范圍不明確,撤銷權(quán)不能追及第三人,善意第三人范圍太廣等問題;(2)信賴義務(wù)抽象,缺乏可操作性。且受托人違反信托義務(wù)時,受托人所應(yīng)承擔(dān)的民事責(zé)任僅作了概括性的規(guī)定,受益人尋求法律保護時,易產(chǎn)生混亂;(3)遺囑信托公示制度的缺乏間接損害受益人的利益。遺囑信托公示制度的缺失,使得與受托人進行交易的第三人難以被認定為惡意第三人,在受托人違反信托,受益人即便能行使撤銷權(quán)進行救濟,但撤銷權(quán)的效力難以適于該第三人,間接損害受益人的權(quán)益;(4)遺囑信托中,委托人的確定性監(jiān)管缺失,以及受益人的可能性監(jiān)管缺失,受托人更容易濫用權(quán)利損害受益人的利益;(5)遺囑信托的所有風(fēng)險,特別是信用風(fēng)險,都由受益人承擔(dān)。第三章“受益人權(quán)利保護途徑分析”。此章分為“風(fēng)險事前防范機制”、“直接、間接保護路徑”、“事后救濟機制”三個部分進行了探討。事前防范機制中,著重對遺囑信托公示制度、遺囑信托財產(chǎn)獨立性、遺囑信托監(jiān)察人、以及以受益人知情權(quán)保障為中心的信息披露制度對受益人權(quán)利保護進行了分析。在遺囑信托受益人權(quán)利保護路徑中,指出我國應(yīng)當(dāng)充分賦予受益人權(quán)利直接保護受益人和明確受托人義務(wù)責(zé)任間接保護受益人。最后就受托人違反信托,受益人享有的三大救濟權(quán)(恢復(fù)原狀請求權(quán)、損害賠償請求權(quán)和撤銷權(quán))進行了分析,并提出了建議。我國大部分學(xué)者主要通過對受托人的規(guī)制來實現(xiàn)受益人保護的間接研究模式,本文直接以受益人保護為視角,通過對兩大法系的信托制度進行比較,從信托基本原理出發(fā),分析遺囑信托的特點。同時將遺囑信托受益人保護方式分為事前預(yù)防機制和事后救濟機制、直接保護途徑和間接保護途徑,綜合受托人責(zé)任、信息披露、遺囑信托財產(chǎn)公示等各項法律機制,構(gòu)建受益人權(quán)利保障制度。本文指出遺囑信托財產(chǎn)獨立性有利于排除委托人債權(quán)人和受托人債權(quán)人的追索,遺囑信托公示制度有利于受益人確定善意第三人的范圍,設(shè)立遺囑信托監(jiān)察人有利于強化監(jiān)督,信息披露制度充分保障了受益人的知情權(quán),消除了受益人、受托人信息不對等的缺陷。在委托人缺位的遺囑信托中,當(dāng)遺囑信托管理方法以及受托人需要變更時,賦予受益人相應(yīng)的權(quán)利,以及明確受托人的忠實義務(wù)、注意義務(wù)能更加全面的保護受益人的利益。在事后救濟機制中,我國信托法應(yīng)當(dāng)擴大損害賠償?shù)姆秶?即遺囑信托財產(chǎn)除了直接損失可以得到賠償,間接損失亦應(yīng)當(dāng)?shù)玫劫r償。此外,我國信托法應(yīng)當(dāng)賦予受益人對信托財產(chǎn)的追及權(quán),受益人除了可直接追及至受托人外,還可追及至第三人,但信托財產(chǎn)被消耗時,無償善意受讓人不負賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:The testamentary trust is a trust that the principal (the testator) transfers to the trustee in the form of wills, all or part of the property is beneficiary, and the trustee manages and disposes the trust property according to the purpose of the trust, so that the beneficiary can enjoy the interests of the trust property. The function of property transfer and property management can flexibly carry out the intention of the client, protect the rights of the beneficiary better, and effectively solve the special desire that the testator cannot achieve under the current succession system, so as to meet people's real needs. Testamentary trust system is the origin of the common law countries, the testamentary trust can avoid inheritance disputes and make unique function more and more permanent property remain favored by other countries, many countries have transplanted the testamentary trust system, and effective integration in its legal system, such as China and the mainland legal system Japan, China Taiwan and other regions. With the increasing of our people's property and the change of ideas, people are more and more hoping to use the testamentary trust to solve the problem of heritage. But the Chinese people for the establishment of testamentary trust also dare to try, people fear that if the establishment of testamentary trust testamentary trust property transferred to the trustee, not their supervision, if the trustee, in our current legal system, the beneficiary is difficult to effectively protect their own interests, the establishment of testamentary trust purpose will fall. People set up a will trust for the benefit of the beneficiary, and the rights and interests of the beneficiaries are the core of the system. There is a conflict of dual ownership of trust property and the Anglo American system of China's real right system, China is not likely to violate the "one thing one right" principle, in the formulation of the "trust law", the "principal" to replace the trust property "transfer", avoid the ownership attribution, resulting in a dispute the independence of the trust property trust, rights and obligations of the parties, the beneficial right of nature. Testamentary trust is a special trust. The nature of the independence of the trust property, the rights and obligations of the litigants, and the beneficial right of the beneficiary of trust are also included in testamentary trust. In addition, the rights entrusted to the principal by the trust law of our country, due to the death of the trustee of the testamentary trust, and the deficiency of the consignor, greatly weaken the supervision. Moreover, other supporting system (such as the public system of testamentary trust, testamentary trust supervisor system, information disclosure system) is the absence of the trustee will be more reckless, abuse of rights, the ultimate victims or beneficiaries. Therefore, it is necessary for us to improve the protection system of the rights of the testamentary trust beneficiary. This article is divided into three chapters: the first chapter, "a summary of the benefit right of the testamentary trust". This part first analyzes the nature of the right to benefit and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the various theories of the Anglo American countries and the civil law countries (especially Japan). Pointed out that the common law benefit rights theories, namely "creditor's right", "right" and "compromise", is in the common law has specific provisions on the basis of the research, the scope is not the beneficial right of the trust legal content beyond, every point of view can be supported, there are three views, just because scholars of the beneficial right of the trust exhibited different degree of attention were different. However, the identification of the beneficiary right of the trust law in the continental law system is not based on the explicit provisions of the national law, but is based on the Anglo American trust theory and the national legal system, and is studied through imagination. Secondly, it describes the content of the right to benefit, namely, "the right to receive the income of the trust property", "the supervision of the trust affairs", and the "right to breach the remedies". The second chapter "the legislative status and defects of the protection of the right to benefit the testamentary trust of our country". In this part, the structure of the testamentary trust is first combed from the three aspects of "human elements", "property elements" and "connection elements". Secondly, analysis of China's trust will benefit five right protection are: (1) the testamentary trust beneficiary rights content is not sufficient, especially the beneficiary right of relief, there is scope of compensation for damages is not clear, right of revocation can not recover and three people, third people in good faith range too wide; (2) fiduciary duty is abstract, the lack of maneuverability. When the trustee violates the obligation of trust, the civil liability of the trustee should be generalized. If the beneficiary seeks legal protection, it will be confused. (3) the lack of the public trust system will indirectly damage the interests of the beneficiary. The lack of public system of testamentary trust, which deals with the trustee of the third people to be identified as malicious third people, in the trustee for breach of trust, even if the beneficiary can exercise the right of revocation of the right to revoke the relief effect but not suitable for the benefit of third people, indirect damage of human rights; (4) the testamentary trust. The lack of supervision of the principal and the beneficiary is determined, the possibility of lack of supervision, the people are more likely to abuse the right to damage the interests of the beneficiary; (5) all risks of testamentary trust, especially the credit risk by the account of the beneficiary. The third chapter "analysis of the protection of beneficiaries' rights". This chapter is divided into three parts: "risk prevention mechanism", "direct, indirect protection path" and "post relief mechanism". In the beforehand prevention mechanism, we focus on the analysis of the system of the testamentary trust, the independence of the trust property, the testamentary trust supervisor, and the information disclosure system centered on the protection of the right to know the beneficiary, and the protection of the rights of the beneficiaries. In the way of protecting the rights of the beneficiary of the testamentary trust, it is pointed out that China should give the beneficiary right to protect the beneficiary and the trustee's Duty obligation indirectly, so as to protect the beneficiary indirectly. In the end, the three great relief rights enjoyed by the trustee in violation of the trust and the beneficiary (restoration of the original claim, the claim for damages)
【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】：D922.282

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 章毓;;淺議我國遺囑信托制度之現(xiàn)狀與完善[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬);2013年03期

2 施新華;;遺囑信托制度研究[J];法制與社會;2013年27期

3 李忠;;遺囑信托制度淺析[J];淮北職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年04期

4 夏保強;;用遺囑信托料理身后事[J];大眾理財顧問;2009年12期

5 賈文麗;;淺析遺囑信托[J];中國商界(下半月);2009年12期

6 上海市東方公證處繼承實務(wù)與立法課題組;鄭建軍;;公益遺囑信托性質(zhì)、特征、公證實務(wù)及立法調(diào)整 繼承實務(wù)與立法系列研究之五[J];中國公證;2010年10期

7 林婷;;芻議我國遺囑信托制度的建構(gòu)[J];湖北財經(jīng)高等專科學(xué)校學(xué)報;2012年02期

8 李霞;;遺囑信托制度論[J];政法論叢;2013年02期

9 鄭春杰;;應(yīng)完善遺囑信托的相關(guān)立法及制度[J];中國律師;2013年02期

10 李本;孫善國;;淺談我國遺囑信托制度的立法完善[J];黑龍江史志;2013年15期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前6條

1 蔡臻欣;遺囑信托：去世后的管家方式[N];第一財經(jīng)日報;2005年

2 林華;遺囑信托:待開發(fā)的遺產(chǎn)管理產(chǎn)業(yè)[N];中國商報;2009年

3 本報記者 聶國春;遺產(chǎn)早規(guī)劃 紛爭遺憾免留下(下)[N];中國消費者報;2009年

4 記者 高談;用保險傳承財富是個訛傳[N];第一財經(jīng)日報;2010年

5 本報記者 劉蘭香;打破“富不過三”魔咒 壽險保金可作財富傳承[N];21世紀經(jīng)濟報道;2012年

6 記者 潘_g　周慧;喬布斯引發(fā)遺囑信托難題[N];廣州日報;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 潘心玲;我國遺囑信托制度研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2012年

2 公維亮;遺囑信托制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

3 張寧;遺囑信托論[D];鄭州大學(xué);2013年

4 孫樹君;中國遺囑信托制度之立法完善[D];東北師范大學(xué);2014年

5 王帥;論我國遺囑信托制度的完善[D];天津師范大學(xué);2015年

6 盧娜;論我國的遺囑信托制度[D];中國青年政治學(xué)院;2014年

7 姜錕;論遺囑信托的價值及其重要制度保障[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2014年

8 董雪;論我國遺囑信托的立法完善[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

9 曾小斌;論我國遺囑信托制度的構(gòu)建與完善[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

10 何潔;我國遺囑信托受益人權(quán)利保護研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：1338445