本土实践视角下的日常家事代理权之教义困局和立法完善  

The Doctrinal Dilemma and Legislative Improvement of the Agent Right of Daily Household Matters in the Perspective of Local Practice

作　　者：杜泽文 Du Zewen

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学法学方法论研究中心,北京100080

出　　处：《南海法学》2024年第4期1-12,共12页The South China Sea Law Journal

摘　　要：日常家事代理权系实现平权的重要法律内容。围绕其性质争议,存在代表说、法定代理说、特别代理说等不同争议,基于其产生背景、发展历史和现实功能,不应将其视为法律创制之人为产物,而是天赋人权之自然权利。日常家事代理权在我国司法实践中面临诸多教义学困境:首先,日常家事的范围模糊,造成日常家事代理权的行使没有明确的核心构成要件;其次,特殊时期日常家事代理权的行使规则欠缺,司法实践处理五花八门;最后,负债情形等状态下日常家事代理权的行使纠纷缺少举证责任分配原则,司法实践中矛盾重重。教义困局反映出基本的立法仍需修正,未来修法的重点应契合实践需求:第一,明确日常家事的定义,罗列典型情形和负面情形;第二,以立法提供夫妻分居期间日常家事代理权的规范基础,将离婚诉讼列入负面情形;第三,为类型化处理对外负债时的举证责任归属提供规范依据。The proxy power for daily household affairs is an essential legal element for achieving equality.Various debates surround its nature,including the representative theory,statutory agency theory,and special agency theory.Based on its background,history,and practical function,it should be considered a natural right inherent to human rights,not a legal invention.However,in Chinese judicial practice,this proxy power faces several doctrinal dilemmas:the ambiguous scope of daily household affairs leads to unclear core elements for exercising this power;there are no specific rules for special periods,resulting in inconsistent judicial handling;and disputes over exercising this power in debt situations lack principles for the burden of proof,leading to judicial conflicts.These issues highlight the need for legislative revisions.Future legislative priorities should meet practical demands:clarifying the definition of daily household affairs and listing typical and negative scenarios;providing a normative basis for proxy power during spousal separation and including divorce proceedings in negative scenarios;and establishing normative bases for burden of proof in external debt situations.

关 键 词：日常家事代理权 构成要件 举证责任 民事立法 

分 类 号：D923.9[政治法律—民商法学]