无效信托研究

发布时间：2018-03-11 01:23

本文选题：信托　切入点：无效信托　出处：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：从最初的用益制到现代的信托,信托这一制度在英国经过曲折的发展道路成为当今世界最流行的财产管理手段。随着全球经济的迅速发展,大陆法系国家认识到信托的巨大作用,纷纷引进了这一先进制度。信托的发展离不开英国衡平法的土壤,但是大陆法系国家的法律制度与英美法系有着天壤之别,信托在移植到大陆法系国家之后,对既有的法律制度造成巨大的冲击。与此同时,大陆法系国家也根据自身情况对信托制度进行了独特的改造,如规定诉讼信托和讨债信托为无效信托。无效信托作为信托制度的重要组成部分,是法律平衡个人自由价值和社会公平价值的特殊手段,在信托制度中扮演者重要的角色。英美法系通过颁布成文法和大量的判例将无效信托予以制度化,而大陆法系国家由于没有判例法的传统,只能依靠成文法对无效信托进行规定。信托的灵活与创新决定了无效信托并不是简单的几个条文就能进行规定的,大陆法系成文法的传统劣势在此暴露无遗。为了避免信托无效之后出现权利的真空状态,法律会对某些无效信托进行救济,而其中最重要的手段就是通过回复信托对无效信托的信托财产进行返还,以达到利益平衡。回复信托是由英国早期的回复用益发展起来的一种法定信托,发展到现代社会,回复信托的范围扩展到了无效信托领域,其重点关注信托无效后的“财产返还”问题,对于平衡信托当事人的利益有着先天的优势。大陆法系国家的信托法大多规定了无效信托,却鲜有国家对无效信托的法律后果进行规定,因此只能借助于既有的法律制度来对无效信托进行救济,如无因管理、不当得利和合同规则等等,但适用这些制度会产生诸多新的问题。我国《信托法》第11条对无效信托的类型进行了详细的列举,却没有对无效信托的法律后果进行规定,在信托被判定无效之后,当事人也只能借助于既有的法律制度寻求救济,其中问题颇多。借鉴英美法系国家的制度,引进回复信托制度无疑是完善我国无效信托制度的一种有益的尝试。目前有学者认为我国若引入回复信托制度将会面临诸多阻碍,例如物权法定主义和一物一权原则。实际上,物权法定主义和一物一权原则在实质上并没有对回复信托的引进造成阻碍,引进回复信托最大的困难在于对信托当事人的保护机制的设计与利益平衡。
[Abstract]:From the initial use-benefit system to the modern trust system, the trust system has become the most popular means of property management in the world after a tortuous development in the United Kingdom. With the rapid development of the global economy, the trust system has become the most popular means of property management in the world. The countries of civil law system realized the great role of trust and introduced this advanced system one after another. The development of trust can not be separated from the soil of British equity law. However, the legal system of civil law system countries is very different from that of common law system. After the trust has been transplanted to the countries of the continental law system, it has caused a great impact on the existing legal system. At the same time, the countries of the civil law system have also made a unique reform of the trust system according to their own conditions. If litigation trust and debt collection trust are defined as invalid trust, as an important part of trust system, invalid trust is a special means of balancing the value of individual freedom and social equity by law. Plays an important role in the trust system. The common law system institutionalizes invalid trusts through the enactment of statutory law and a large number of precedents, while civil law countries have no tradition of case law, We can only rely on the statute law to regulate the invalid trust. The flexibility and innovation of the trust determines that the invalid trust can not be regulated by a few simple articles. In order to avoid a vacuum in rights after the invalidity of the trust, the law provides relief to certain invalid trusts. Among them, the most important means is to return the trust property of the invalid trust through the restoration trust, so as to achieve the balance of interests. The restoration trust is a kind of legal trust developed from the early recovery interest in England and developed into the modern society. The scope of the reply trust is extended to the field of invalid trust, which focuses on the "return of property" after the invalidation of the trust. There is an inherent advantage in balancing the interests of trust parties. Most trust laws in civil law countries provide for invalid trusts, but few countries regulate the legal consequences of invalid trusts. Therefore, it is only possible to resort to the existing legal system to remedy invalid trusts, such as non-cause management, improper enrichment, contractual rules, etc. However, the application of these systems will lead to many new problems. Article 11 of China's Trust Law enumerates the types of invalid trusts in detail, but does not provide for the legal consequences of invalid trusts. The parties can only seek relief with the aid of the existing legal system, among which there are many problems. It is undoubtedly a useful attempt to perfect the system of invalid trust in our country. At present, some scholars think that China will face many obstacles if it is introduced, such as the doctrine of property law and the principle of "one thing, one right". In essence, the principle of the legal doctrine of real right and the principle of "one thing, one right" does not hinder the introduction of the return trust. The greatest difficulty of the introduction of the return trust lies in the design of the protection mechanism and the balance of interests of the trust parties.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.282

【参考文献】