摘要
夫妻之间互负忠诚义务,第三人不得故意干扰婚姻关系。现行《婚姻法》第46条只规定了重婚与有配偶与他人同居两种严重违反忠实义务的离婚损害赔偿责任,致使离婚时,无过错方在过错方与第三者有非同居婚外不正当关系行为时难以据此向二者主张损害赔偿。现非因同居婚外不正当关系所引发的离婚损害赔偿之侵权责任认定问题已经成为实务上的疑难问题,其中"欺诈性抚养"系此类问题之典型。司法实务对此适用条款不一,裁判结果各异。其中,"配偶权"一说法无明据,且理论上诸多疑点未破,难谓妥适。在"利益保护"之情形下,法释[2001]7号第1条第2款削足适履,第2条前提受限,皆非良策。参酌域外法例,应当明确无过错方所受侵害系身份利益,以《民法通则》第106条第2款(《侵权责任法》第6条第1款)、《侵权责任法》第22条为请求权基础,并束之以体系性解释。在构成要件上,主观需为故意,损害需达到与《婚姻法》第46条所列情形相当之严重后果,以顾法律评价于行为自由与权益保护二者之协调。道德义务法律化固在所难免,但囿于道德评价良心、法律裁判行为之区隔,道德入法终须慎重,法律的泛道德化必戕害自由,因而对此必须结合个案把握合理限度,以护自由与强制之平衡。
Husband and wife should be loyal to each other, and the third party cannot disturb the marital relationship on purpose. The Marriage Law of People＇s Republic of China only stipulates that the party who commits bigamy or cohabitates with any third party shall bear the liability of damage compen- sation. But a non--fault party cannot claim any damage compensation after divorce according to this clause if the fault party keeps a non--cohabitation extramarital relationship with a third party. How to decide the tort liability caused by non--cohabitation extramarital relationship has become a difficult problem in practice among which ＇fraudulent fostering＇ is the typical problem. Different clauses are applied in judicial practice, and the judgments are not the same. ＂The right of spouse＂ has no definite legal basis, and many questions are not answered in theory. In the case of ＂interests protection of ＂, the second paragraph of the first article and the second article in the Seventh Judicial Explanation in 2001 cannot be applied properly. In reference to foreign law, it should be defined that the damage non--fault party suffers is the loss of identity interests on the base of the second paragraph of the 106th article in the General Principles of Civil Law of People＇s Republic of China （the first paragraph of the sixth article in the Tort of People＇s Republic of China）, the 22nd article in the Tort of People＇s Republic of China, and it should be confined to systematic interpretation. In order to keep the balance between freedom of action and protection of rights and interests, it should be required that the fault party should be on purpose and the outcome should be as severe as those listed in the 46th article in the Marriage Law of People＇s Republic of China. Although legalization of moral obligation is inevitable under some circumstances, we should be careful when transferring moral obligation into law. Because generalization of legalization of moral obligation can do harm to freedom, the pro
出处
《中外法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第1期81-99,共19页
Peking University Law Journal
基金
教育部新世纪优秀人才计划资助
国家社科基金重大项目:社会治理体制创新法制建设研究(14ZDC027)
国家社科基金后期资助项目:损害赔偿与债法现代化(13FFX008)之部分成果
关键词
道德义务法律化
忠诚义务
非同居关系
欺诈性抚养
侵权责任
Legalization of Moral Obligation
Loyalty Obligation
Non- cohabitation Relationship
Fraudulent Fostering
Tort Liability
