继承权的丧失与恢复制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-29 16:16

本文选题：继承权 + 继承权丧失　；参考：《辽宁大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：继承权丧失制度目前在实践当中仍存在问题。在具体事由上,现有的规定还需细化和补充。在“故意杀害被继承人”的问题上,法律规定的不够详细。有关犯罪预备、未遂、中止、既遂等不同形态下应如何处理,现有规定并未给出答案。就未成年人实施的杀害、特别防卫下的杀害也缺乏特别规定。而这些问题都应进行明确。另外,事由在具体事项上仍有欠缺。缺少有关故意伤害致死,教唆、帮助自杀以及当事人“见死不救”等事项。上述情形都应予以补充。在杀害其他继承人的事由中,“为争夺遗产”的主观限制没有存在的必要,应予以删除,并应增加有关“先前顺位及同顺位”的规定以此替代主观目的的限制。此外,也应补充故意伤害致死的内容。在遗弃或虐待被继承人的情形下,“遗弃”与“虐待”没有分别处理。应对这两种情形分别进行规定,确认“遗弃”为绝对丧失、“虐待”为相对丧失。涉及遗嘱的事由中,有关“情节严重”的程度限制存在问题,应予删除,并且应增添其他手段迫使被继承人作出违背真实意愿决定的规定。同时,现有事由在内容上仍需要扩充。应补充对被继承人作伪证及生前对其进行诽谤等情形。就诉讼提起的主体和程序,现有的法律法规并未对此进行规定。继承权丧失采取的是当然丧失还是宣告丧失的方式尚需明确。哪些人有资格提起诉讼以及诉讼的提起是否需要遵循某种顺序等问题都需要进一步规定。法院在当事人没有起诉的情况下,可否为了其他案件的审理而直接判决认定继承权丧失也是困扰法官的难题。应明确与继承有利害关系的人可提起诉讼,并且诉讼的提起应遵循法定继承顺序。法院也不能不经起诉“直接判决”。继承权恢复的规范过于粗略。恢复的条件、形式和效力均缺乏细致规定。现行的双重条件说就“悔过”的判定存在困难。权利的恢复是否有可参考的法定形式以及恢复后的效力等问题都是规定的空白区。应明确“宽恕”为恢复的唯一条件、认定实务中已被认可的“悔过书”签字等具体形式、明确权利恢复后其相关权利也可得到恢复。
[Abstract]:The system of loss of inheritance right still has problems in practice. In specific matters, the existing provisions need to be refined and supplemented. On the issue of intentional killing of heirs, the law is not sufficiently detailed. There is no answer on how to deal with different forms of crime preparation, attempt, suspension and accomplishment. There is also no special provision for the killing of minors, especially in defence. And these issues should be made clear. In addition, there are still deficiencies in specific matters. Lack of intentional injury to death, abetting, aiding suicide and the parties to the "death" and other matters. All of the above should be supplemented. In the killing of other heirs, there is no need for the subjective restriction of "to fight for inheritance", which should be deleted, and the provisions on "previous ranking and concomitant" should be added as a substitute for the limitation of subjective purpose. In addition, the content of intentional injury to death should be supplemented. In the case of abandonment or mistreatment of the heirs, abandonment and abuse are not treated separately. These two situations should be regulated separately, confirming that abandonment is absolute loss and maltreatment is relative loss. In the case of wills, there is a problem with the extent of the restriction of "gravity", which should be deleted, and additional means should be added to compel the heirs to make decisions against their true will. At the same time, the existing cause in the content still needs to be expanded. The perjury and libel of the heirs should be supplemented. The existing laws and regulations do not regulate the subject and procedure of litigation. It is still clear whether the right to inheritance should be lost of course or declared. The question of who is eligible to file a lawsuit and whether the proceedings need to be filed in some order requires further regulation. It is also a difficult problem for the judge to decide directly whether the court can decide that the right of inheritance is lost for other cases without suing the litigant. It should be made clear that persons with an interest in succession may initiate proceedings, and that proceedings shall be brought in accordance with the legal succession order. The court is also unable to prosecute "direct judgment." The rules for restoration of inheritance are too rough. The conditions, forms and effects of restoration are lacking in detail. The current double condition theory is difficult to determine "repentance". Whether the restoration of rights has the legal form of reference and the effectiveness after restoration are all prescribed blank areas. "forgiveness" should be defined as the only condition for restoration, and the specific form of "regret" signature, which has been recognized in practice, should be determined, and the relevant rights can also be restored after the restoration of the right.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.5

【相似文献】