本文選題：欺詐性撫養(yǎng) + 財產(chǎn)損害　； 參考：《浙江大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：男方出于對與女方存在的基礎(chǔ)社會關(guān)系(婚姻關(guān)系、非婚同居關(guān)系、性伴侶關(guān)系等)的信賴,誤以女方與他人所生子女為親生子女加以撫養(yǎng)的案件不在少數(shù),與對維護血緣關(guān)系真實性的觀念產(chǎn)生激烈的沖突。在立法上,我國就此并無明文規(guī)定。在司法上,該類案件的裁判在法律適用的思路、判決理由、判決結(jié)果上存在分歧。本文旨在通過司法實踐及學界觀點之梳理,在比較現(xiàn)有研究之不同觀點,對法官審判的理由和結(jié)果進行評述的基礎(chǔ)之上,在現(xiàn)行法框架內(nèi)為救濟撫養(yǎng)人找到妥適的法律依據(jù)。本文共六個部分:第一部分為引言部分,提出問題、闡明研究目的、簡要介紹研究方法,重點通過介紹社會現(xiàn)狀、法律運行現(xiàn)狀及現(xiàn)有研究之不足展現(xiàn)論題的實踐和理論價值。第二部分為司法實踐梳理部分。本文采用請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)理論,先基本確定請求人、被請求人及請求權(quán)目標。在區(qū)分被請求人的前提下,區(qū)分不同請求權(quán)目標(財產(chǎn)及非財產(chǎn)損害),分別就法院支持與駁回的立場,結(jié)合裁判思路,說明不同案件類型中法院的判決理由。為展現(xiàn)實務(wù)上因基礎(chǔ)社會關(guān)系之不同所致判決理由上的差異,區(qū)分雙方是否存在婚姻關(guān)系,并在存在婚姻關(guān)系的案件內(nèi)部根據(jù)是否違反忠實義務(wù)進一步細分登記婚前/后與他人發(fā)生性關(guān)系的情形。第三部分是欺詐性撫養(yǎng)研究范疇的界定。對欺詐性撫養(yǎng)的概念變遷為一介紹,并指出其名實不符之處。為避免預(yù)設(shè)結(jié)論,對研究范疇的劃定側(cè)重事實描述,只要滿足"男方(祖父母)基于與被撫養(yǎng)人存在血緣關(guān)系的錯誤認識對生母與男方以外之人生育之子女加以撫養(yǎng)"這一事實描述,即落入"欺詐性撫養(yǎng)"應(yīng)當探討的范疇。錯誤認識產(chǎn)生的原因為何僅影響請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)的選擇。該部分還論證了婚姻法及其他民事法律介入欺詐性撫養(yǎng)糾紛的正當性。第四部分對財產(chǎn)損害訴求的請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)進行了論證。對不予支持的否定說予以否定,以請求權(quán)檢索的方式對認為應(yīng)予支持的肯定說立場下的不同理由進行了批判和論證,否定了行為無效說、違約行為說、無因管理說。論證了婚姻法內(nèi)救濟手段離婚損害賠償請求權(quán)在待研究案件類型中適用范圍狹窄,財產(chǎn)分割時照顧無過錯方原則在適用上具備輔助性。在婚姻法內(nèi)部救濟不力的情形下,轉(zhuǎn)向其他的民事法律尋求救濟,其中債權(quán)的法定讓與雖有道理但缺乏實證法支持;不當?shù)美颠�請求權(quán)在本文討論的案件中有廣泛的適用余地;就侵權(quán)損害賠償請求權(quán)而言,重點闡述了一般侵權(quán)行為構(gòu)成要件(加害行為、過錯、損害事實、因果關(guān)系),并對援引侵權(quán)應(yīng)滿足的構(gòu)成要件以及與不當?shù)美颠�請求權(quán)的適用關(guān)系進行了闡述。第五部分對非財產(chǎn)損害訴求的請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)進行了論證。重點就被侵害權(quán)益為何展開論述,對學界及司法實踐中對被侵害權(quán)益的不同認定為評述,得出侵害"防止他人有目的地隱瞞與生命延續(xù)等切身利益相關(guān)的信息"這一非典型人格利益的結(jié)論。第六部分是結(jié)論與建議部分�？偨Y(jié)本文研究結(jié)論,提出此類案件中的司法處理步驟及應(yīng)當援引的法律依據(jù),并就責任的具體認定為簡要總結(jié),以期為統(tǒng)一司法實踐發(fā)揮參考價值。
[Abstract]:The man's trust in basic social relations (marriage, unmarried cohabitation, sexual partner, etc.) is not in a small number of cases, and there is a fierce conflict with the concept of maintaining the authenticity of blood relations. In legislation, there is no clear rule in our country. In the judicature, the referee of this kind of case is different in the applicable law of the law, the reason of the judgment and the result of the judgment. This article aims to compare the different views of the existing research and comment on the reasons and results of the judge's trial through the judicial practice and the academic view, and to find the relief support in the framework of the current law. To the legal basis of appropriateness. This article consists of six parts: the first part is the introduction, put forward the questions, clarify the purpose of the study, introduce the research methods briefly, and focus on the practice and theoretical value of the topic by introducing the social status, the status of the law operation and the shortcomings of the existing research. The second part is a part of the judicial practice. On the basis of the basic theory of seeking rights, we first basically determine the request, the requested person and the right of request. On the premise of differentiating the requestor, distinguish the different claim targets (property and non property damage), separately on the position of the court support and dismissal, and combine the referee's ideas to explain the reasons for the judgment of the law academy in the different types of cases. The differences in the reasons for the differences in social relations, distinguish whether there is a marriage relationship between the two parties, and further subdivide the relationship between pre marital / post marriage and others in the case of violation of the obligation of loyalty in the case of marital relations. The third part is the definition of the research category of fraudulent foster care. In order to avoid presupposition, to avoid a presupposed conclusion, to lay particular emphasis on the description of the scope of the study, as long as it satisfies the fact that "the man (grandparent) is based on a wrong understanding of the relationship with the dependants of the child to be raised by the birth mother and the man outside the man", that is, "deceit". The fourth part of this part also demonstrates the legitimacy of the marriage law and other civil laws involved in the dissension of fraudulent support. The fourth part demonstrates the basis of the claim for the claim for property damage. The way of searching for the right of claim is criticized and demonstrated for the different reasons that should be supported by the affirmative position, and denies the theory of invalid behavior, the breach of contract, and the non cause management. It demonstrates that the claim for compensation for the compensation for divorce damages in the marriage law is narrow in the application of the case type, and there is no fault to take care of the property when the property is divided. In the case of inadequate internal relief in the marriage law, it turns to other civil laws to seek relief, in which the legal assignment of the creditor's right is justified but lacks the support of the empirical law; the right to return the unjust enrichment is widely applicable in the cases discussed in this article; and the claim for compensation for tort damages is concerned. In the fifth part, the fifth part expounds the basis of the claim on the claim of non property damage. The emphasis is on the rights and interests of the infringed rights and interests. The sixth part is the conclusion and the suggestion part. The conclusion of this paper is the conclusion and the conclusion of this kind of case, and the conclusion of this kind of case is put forward in this kind of case. The judicial process and the legal basis that should be invoked, and the concrete cognizance of responsibility is a brief summary, so as to provide reference value for the unified judicial practice.

【學位授予單位】：浙江大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.9

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃潔;;受欺騙撫養(yǎng)非親生子女的損害賠償問題研究[J];重慶科技學院學報(社會科學版);2015年09期

2 鐘莉;;請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)分析法在個案中的演示與運用[J];法制與社會;2015年20期

3 沈旭紅;;論欺詐性撫養(yǎng)的法律規(guī)制[J];法制與社會;2014年27期

4 李巖;;一般人格權(quán)的類型化分析[J];法學;2014年04期

5 沈建峰;;一般人格權(quán)和侵權(quán)法結(jié)構(gòu)的互動關(guān)系[J];天津法學;2013年02期

6 李健;;男方受欺騙撫養(yǎng)非親生子女 離婚后,可否追索撫養(yǎng)費?[J];公民導刊;2012年05期

7 景春蘭;;欺詐性撫養(yǎng)的損害賠償及其原權(quán)利探究[J];山西省政法管理干部學院學報;2011年02期

8 尹田;;論人格權(quán)概括保護的立法模式——“一般人格權(quán)”概念的廢除[J];河南省政法管理干部學院學報;2011年01期

9 朱曉U，

本文編號：1823759