因受托人原因致遗嘱信托不成立及其补救路径

发布时间：2018-02-04 02:22

本文关键词： 遗嘱信托受托人承诺受托人原因受益人　出处：《南京师范大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：《信托法》第一次将英美法系中的遗嘱信托制度引进到我国,然而其对遗嘱信托更多的只是一个概念的引进,而现行的《继承法》也根本就没有关于遗嘱信托的规定。这就引起了对遗嘱信托制度的许多争议且主要有两方面：第一,信托法规定采用遗嘱方式设立的信托其成立是以受托人承诺为要件的,而这被许多学者认为是我国信托立法的一个缺陷,他们认为按照规定受托人拒绝或者无能力接受信托时则遗嘱信托不成立,这显然是与遗嘱的单方法律性质和成立条件相矛盾的；第二,依据《信托法》第13条的规定当出现受托人不接受或者无能力接受信托时受益人可以有权另行选任受托人,但按《信托法》的规定此时遗嘱信托还未成立,受益人的主体资格及其另行选任受托人的权利的法律依据又为何呢? 针对这两个争议本文将主要分析四个问题,第一,遗嘱信托的成立与受托人的关系,问题的本质在于遗嘱信托中遗嘱与信托的关系以及对“受托人承诺原则”坚持与否；第二,导致遗嘱信托不成立的因受托人的原因具体有哪些；第三,在出现因受托人原因使遗嘱信托不能成立时受益人具有什么样的主体资格；第四,在具备了前面的主体资格后,其是否有选任受托人的权利?前两个问题是对第一个争议的回应,后两个问题是对第二个争议的回应,对于上述四个问题的解决就构成了文章的主要研究内容。本文的研究结论主要是坚持了受托人承诺原则并在此前提下对使得遗嘱信托不成立的受托人原因予以界定,从而指出当遗嘱信托因受托人的原因而不能成立时,遗嘱信托指定的受益人此时已经取得了受益人的主体地位但是其并不能如《信托法》第13条规定的那样取得另行选任受托人的权利。在对法定补救路径否定的基础上提出可行的补救路径即将另行选任受托人的权利赋予法院或遗嘱执行人并最终选择了以法院为中心的补救路径。
[Abstract]:< > trust first will introduce the common law in the testamentary trust system in our country, however, the more the testamentary trust is a concept of the introduction of the current "Inheritance Law > there has been no provisions on testamentary trust. This caused a lot of controversy on the testamentary trust system and there are two main: first, the establishment of the trust law will set up the trust as a trustee for the elements of this commitment, many scholars think that it is a defect of China Trust legislation, they believe that in accordance with the provisions of the trustee refuses or is unable to accept the trust is a testamentary trust is not established, this is obviously and unilateral the legal nature of wills and the conditions of establishment of contradiction; second, according to < > thirteenth of the provisions of the trust law when the trustee does not accept or not accept the ability to trust the beneficiary has the right to appoint a trustee can be, But what is the legal basis for the subject qualification of the beneficiary and the legal basis for the rights of the trustee to be selected in accordance with the provisions of the "trust law"?
According to the two disputes this article will mainly analyze four problems, first, the relationship between the trustee and the establishment of testamentary trust, the essence of the problem lies in the relationship between will and trust testamentary trust and the trustee promises to adhere to principle "or not; second, leading to the testamentary trust made the trustee due to the specific what are the third; as a result of the trustee makes testamentary trust cannot be established when the beneficiary has what kind of qualifications; fourth, the front of the main qualifications, whether the appointment of the trustee's rights? The first two questions is the first controversial response, after the two issue is about second a controversial response to solve the four problems mentioned above constitute the main contents of the article.
The main conclusions of this study is to adhere to the trustee fiduciary commitment principle and reason under the premise of the establishment of testamentary trust is not defined, so that when the testamentary trust due to the trustee can not be established, the testamentary trust has achieved at the designated beneficiary beneficiary subject status but it is not as "trust law" the provisions of article thirteenth that achieved prior appointment of the trustee's rights. Based on the negation of legal remedy path is put forward on the path to recovery feasible may appoint the trustee's rights granted to the court or the executor and chooses the remedial methods of court centered.

【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.282

【参考文献】