基于自然债视角下的忠诚协议研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 14:31

本文选题：忠诚协议 + 无名身份协议　；参考：《浙江树人大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2014年04期

【摘要】：忠诚协议的效力问题目前仍有争议,各地法院的司法立场也各不相同,有的法院作出了支持判决,有的法院则不予受理或驳回请求。局限在法律之债的范畴内探讨忠诚协议的效力,不论是有效说还是无效说,支持还是不支持,都将陷入"于法无据"和"无法司法"的窘境。将忠诚协议所生之债定位为自然之债不仅可以摆脱这一窘境,而且可以为忠诚协议找到一种符合法律理性的处置。忠诚协议不能依《合同法》之规定产生合同之债,也不能依《婚姻法》之规定产生与有名身份协议相同的法律之债,忠诚协议所生之债只能是自然之债。基于家事领域司法谦抑的考虑,法院有必要克制在婚姻家庭事务上拓展司法疆域的冲动,将因忠诚协议引发的纠纷排除在受案和审理范围之外。
[Abstract]:At present, the validity of loyalty agreement is still controversial, and the judicial position of the local courts is different. Some courts have made a decision in support of the agreement, while some courts have rejected or rejected the request. To discuss the validity of loyalty agreement within the scope of legal debt, whether it is valid or invalid, support or not, will fall into the dilemma of "lawlessness" and "impossibility of justice". It is not only possible to get rid of this dilemma but also to find a way to deal with the loyalty agreement in accordance with the legal rationality if the debt arising from the loyalty agreement is regarded as a natural debt. The loyalty agreement can not produce the contract debt according to the contract law, nor can it produce the same legal debt as the famous identity agreement according to the marriage law. The loyalty agreement debt can only be a natural debt. Based on the consideration of judicial modesty in the field of family affairs, it is necessary for the court to restrain the impulse to expand the jurisdiction of marriage and family affairs, and to exclude disputes caused by loyalty agreements from the scope of cases and trials.
【作者单位】：浙江大学光华法学院;
【基金】：浙江大学“十二五”期间省重点学科“民商法学学科”资助课题
【分类号】：D920.5;D923.9;D923.6

【相似文献】