中国民法典中人格权应否独立成编之争论 (The Debate Over a Separate Part on Personality Rights in Chinese Civil Code)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한중법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 중국법연구 / 40권 / 33 ~ 53페이지
· 저자명 : 崔吉子

초록

中国正在进行民法典的编纂工作，在已公布的草案中，将人格权独立设为一编. 此立法体例系对传统大陆法系民法典体系的突破，引起了中国学界的激烈争论.
支持人格权独立成编者认为：第一，民法总则简单列举人格权的类型并配合侵权责任法的现行立法模式，无法有效保护人格权；人格权的内涵和效力需要更为具体的规定. 第二，现行法律将人格权作为防御性的权利而未规定为积极性权利，仅当其被侵害时，通过侵权责任法予以救济. 而人格权与物权和知识产权不无二致，可以积极行使. 因此，需要在将来的民法典中独立设人格权编以容纳更加具体的人格权行使规则.
反对人格权独立成编的理由可分为三种：第一，人格利益应作为法益被保护；第二，人格权是宪法权利，人格权独立成编会限制人格权的保护范围；第三，人格权具有先在性、不可定义性和防御性. 由此，反对将人格权独立成为一编，而主张人格权应当规定在民法总则和侵权责任编.
本文认为：第一，人格权具有专属性，不能与人本体分离，无法行使与利用且具有难以定义的特征，只有肖像权、姓名权等少部分人格权能够通过许可方式进行利用；第二，民法典人格权编草案的形式繁杂且空洞，草案中的人格权编应删除，其中如有个别条文有存在价值，可以纳入民法总则、侵权责任编，或交由公法中的行政法律规范进行调整与规制.

영어초록

China is working on the compilation of the Civil Code. During this process, the personality right has been codified as a separate part in the public draft of Civil Code, which is a breakthrough of the legislation mode of the continental law system, leading to great controversy in Chinese academic circle.
The opinion which support the inclusion of personality right as a separate part based on the following reasons. First, the current civil laws, listing personality rights in the General Principles of Civil Law and relief personality infringement by Tort Law, cannot protect personality rights effectively. It is necessary to detail the contents and effects of personality rights. Secondly, the personality rights in current civil laws are not positive rights but defensive rights which are protected by Tort law when they were infringed. However, personality rights can be positively exercised like property rights and intellectual property rights. So there should be a separate part to contain more articles in the future Civil Code to regulate the exercise of personality rights.
There are three different arguments against personality right as a separate part. First, personality rights should be protected as legal interests. Secondly, personality rights are constitutional rights and a separate part will limit the protection of personality rights. Third, personality rights are inherent, undefinable and defensive. As a conclusion of these arguments, personality rights should be stipulated in the part of General Principles and the part of Tort, instead of a separate part.
The article draws the conclusion as follows. First, from the perspective of the characteristics, personality rights are innate rights which cannot be separated from right holder. Moreover, personality rights are hard to define and plenty of them cannot be exercised, except minority rights like portrait right and right of name which can be authorized to others. Secondly, the draft of Personality Rights Part, lacking effective articles, seems hollow and cluttered and should be deleted. Some useful articles could be stipulated in the part of General Principles and the part of Tort of the future Civil Code, or other public laws such as administrative laws.

참고자료

· 없음