摘要
我国《民法典》第33条确立了成年人的意定监护制度,贯彻成年人监护事务的自决权。我国意定监护应采取“委托+代理授权”的法律构造,意定监护人在执行监护时享有事务管理权限,应尽到谨慎义务,并避免利益冲突,但若无约定,并无将监护财产进行投资的义务。尽管意定监护是被监护人的自愿选择,但仍有可能出现监护人侵害被监护人利益的现象。鉴于此,国内外的法律实践纷纷将信托机制引入意定监护之中,利用信托的风险隔离功能和目的意思冻结功能,实现被监护人的人身照管和财产管理的分离,形成一种协同与制衡机制,解决监护人的道德风险问题。信托的受托人比意定监护人享有更大的财产管理权限,相应地也承担较重的忠诚义务,并且营业信托受托人还负有投资增值的义务。厘清意定监护与信托的法教义学原理,有利于实践中正确地组合运用“监护+信托”制度工具,有利于司法实践解决此类法律纠纷。
Article 33 of the Chinese Civil Code establishes the adult appointed guardianship system to implement the adult’s autonomy with respect to their own guardianship.The adult appointed guardianship system in China should adopt the legal structure of“trust+agency agreement”.The appointed guardian has the right to make arrangements for the ward,while at the same time he must fulfill his duty of care.In addition,the guardian should avoid conflict of interest with the ward.Unless there is a specific agreement between the guardian and the ward,the guardian does not have an obligation to make investment with the property of his ward.Though adults can choose their guardians,there is still a possibility that guardian may infringe upon the ward’s rights and interests.As a result,the trust mechanism has been introduced into the adult appointed guardianship system in both Chinese and foreign legal practice,making use of the trust’s functions of risk separation and purpose-will freezing to separate the personal care from property management,so as to develop a coordination and check and balance mechanism for controlling the ethical risk of the guardian.A trustee has more competence in managing the client’s property than the appointed guardian and consequently also assumes heavier duty of loyalty towards the client.Moreover,a trustee of business trust also has the obligation to increase the trust property through investment.Clarifying the legal dogmatic principles of guardianship and trust is conducive to properly combining the trust system and the guardianship system and solving related legal disputes in judicial practice.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第5期67-83,共17页
Global Law Review
