發(fā)布時間：2018-06-28 05:38

  本文選題：分家協(xié)議 + 繼承法　； 參考：《寧波大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：以嫡長子繼承制為核心的分家協(xié)議制度自戰(zhàn)國中期以來在中國社會已經(jīng)延續(xù)二千多年,主要調(diào)整土地和房屋等家產(chǎn)在多子家庭中的傳承與流動。在這一體系內(nèi)部,已經(jīng)形成較為穩(wěn)定的內(nèi)容與程序,效力也受到歷代封建王朝的肯定。但是,隨著清末基于政治要求移植西方法運動的盛行,繼承制度正式取代了分家制度,成為了我國法律意義上正統(tǒng)的財產(chǎn)傳承制度,而分家協(xié)議則悄然退出了國家法舞臺。然時至今日,分家協(xié)議仍然作為一種風俗習慣廣泛存在于中國民間,尤其是廣大農(nóng)村地區(qū),并實際發(fā)揮著重要的作用。由于法律的缺失,學界與司法界對分家協(xié)議的性質(zhì)與效力意見不一。在涉分家協(xié)議的案件審理過程中,法官往往因其內(nèi)容的不公允而否定其效力,忽視了簽訂協(xié)議時各方的真實意思表示情況。一味如此,既無法保護協(xié)議各方當事人的預期利益,也無益于糾紛的真正解決,甚至可能導致民間法與國家法矛盾沖突的日益加劇。繼承行為的家庭屬性及繼承的倫理特質(zhì)決定了分家協(xié)議在繼承法中適用的必要性,也為在繼承法重構(gòu)過程中揚棄分家協(xié)議提供了良好的土壤。鑒于此,本文從分家協(xié)議的性質(zhì)入手,指出其契約性的本質(zhì),在繼承法修訂的過程中提議認可其協(xié)議的本質(zhì),并輔之以特留份、必留份等制度,盡可能在私產(chǎn)處分領(lǐng)域以尊重當事人的意思自治作為首要原則,肯定分家協(xié)議的效力,同時對協(xié)議中不盡完善之處予以法律的強行性干預,從而兼顧契約自由與法律規(guī)制間的沖突,真正實現(xiàn)二者的融合,同時也為司法領(lǐng)域提供切實可行的裁判依據(jù),真正實現(xiàn)定紛止爭。
[Abstract]:Since the middle period of the warring States period, the system of family separation agreement with the system of succession of the eldest son as the core has lasted for more than 2,000 years in Chinese society, mainly adjusting the inheritance and flow of land and houses among the multi-child families. Within this system, relatively stable contents and procedures have been formed, and their effectiveness has been affirmed by the feudal dynasties. However, with the popularity of the movement of transplanting western methods based on political demands in the late Qing Dynasty, the inheritance system formally replaced the separation system and became the orthodox property inheritance system in the legal sense of our country, and the separation agreement quietly withdrew from the stage of state law. Today, however, as a custom, the agreement of separation still exists widely in the Chinese folk, especially in the rural areas, and plays an important role in practice. Due to the lack of law, scholars and the judiciary have different opinions on the nature and validity of the separation agreement. In the trial process of the case involving the separation agreement, the judge often negates its effect because of its unfair content, neglecting the real intention of the parties when signing the agreement. Blindly, it can neither protect the expected interests of the parties to the agreement, nor is it conducive to the real settlement of disputes, and may even lead to the increasing conflict between civil law and national law. The family attribute of inheritance behavior and the ethical characteristics of inheritance determine the necessity of the application of the separation agreement in the inheritance law, and also provide a good soil for the sublation and abandonment of the separation agreement in the process of reconstruction of the inheritance law. In view of this, this paper starts with the nature of the division agreement, points out the nature of its contractual nature, proposes to approve the nature of the agreement in the course of the amendment of the succession law, and adjusts it with the system of special retention, mandatory retention, and so on. As far as possible, in the field of disposition of private property, respect for the autonomy of the parties' will is the first principle to affirm the validity of the separation agreement, and at the same time to impose legal intervention on the imperfect aspects of the agreement. Thus, the conflict between the freedom of contract and legal regulation can be taken into account, and the fusion of the two can be realized. At the same time, it can also provide a practical basis for adjudication in the judicial field, so as to realize the resolution of disputes and disputes.
【學位授予單位】：寧波大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.5

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王冬梅;;論我國繼承法對被繼承人債務(wù)的處理規(guī)定存在的不足[J];科技信息;2006年S2期

2 羅佩華;;遺產(chǎn)的處理[J];北京宣武紅旗業(yè)余大學學報;2006年04期

3 ;法律常識[J];農(nóng)村.農(nóng)業(yè).農(nóng)民(B版);2010年04期

4 檀林飛;;遺產(chǎn)酌分請求權(quán)制度若干問題探討[J];湖北警官學院學報;2012年02期

5 徐文文;;被繼承人債務(wù)清償糾紛審判實務(wù)若干問題探討——兼論遺產(chǎn)債務(wù)清償制度的完善[J];東方法學;2013年04期

6 長水;“照顧”與“繼承”不能混為一談[J];法學;1983年06期

7 任景龍;對遺產(chǎn)繼承中被繼承人債務(wù)清償?shù)目捶╗J];河北法學;1985年04期

8 李仁玉;;遺產(chǎn)淺析[J];法學雜志;1985年01期

9 袁建國;;也談遺贈扶養(yǎng)協(xié)議[J];政治與法律;1986年01期

10 徐克勤;;怎樣繼承境外遺產(chǎn)[J];鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)論壇;1989年11期

相關(guān)會議論文 前4條

1 倪曉晶;;淺析遺產(chǎn)債權(quán)清償責任若干問題[A];當代法學論壇（2008年第4輯）[C];2008年

2 蔣超;倪s，

本文編號：2076948