【作者】 李欣；

【导师】 焦富民；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 法学， 2025， 硕士

【摘要】 《民法典》第127条将虚拟财产与数据纳入了民事权利的客体,满足了互联网时代保护网络虚拟财产和个人数据的需求。同时,《民法典》第1122条通过“概括+排除”的立法模式,为数字遗产继承提供了制度空间,体现了立法的合理性与科学性,也是进步之举。然而,《民法典》对数字财产的立法规定较为笼统,实践中对条文存在不同理解致使司法裁判不统一。本文从判例出发,通过案例分析,发现在数字遗产继承方面存在的症结,逐一分析并提出自己的意见。第一部分,从司法案例出发,通过对与数字遗产继承的相关案例进行梳理,得出实践中存在数字遗产的可继承性争议和网络服务协议中“限制继承”条款效力认定不统一,以及数字遗产价值评估和分割存在困难等问题。第二部分,讨论了数字遗产的可继承性问题。首先,明确了数字遗产的界定。其次,指出数字遗产属于民法上的合法财产,无论其权利属性如何,都不影响其是否能够作为继承对象。最后,解释了《民法典》第1122条第2款“根据其性质不得继承”应理解为涉及一身专属性的权利、义务和法律关系不得继承。因此,本文认为,判断数字遗产是否可继承,应以其是否具备一身专属性为标准,具有一身专属性的数字遗产不可继承,而涉及个人隐私的数字遗产,则不应当然认定为不可继承。第三部分,首先分析了主流网络服务协议,指出大多数网络服务协议中都包含限制继承人继承数字遗产的条款,如账号不可转让和继承条款、数字财产所有权与使用权分离条款等。接着明确了数字财产的所有权应归网络用户所有,并指出由于网络服务协议属于格式合同,“限制继承”条款未遵循公平原则,因而无效。最后,提出应从增加公众对限制继承条款的知情、合理设定限制继承条款、并对这些条款进行合理解释三方面来保护继承人的继承权利。第四部分,首先探讨了数字遗产继承主体及顺位问题,指出数字遗产继承人应为现实中的法定继承人。其次,针对实践中数字遗产价值难以评估的问题,对常见数字财产价值进行了认定分析。最后,指出应通过确立统一的价值评估标准和建立专业的价值评估机构构建合理的数字遗产价值评估机制。更多还原

【Abstract】 Article 127 of the Civil Code includes data and virtual property as objects of civil rights,which meets the demand for the protection of personal data and online virtual property in the Internet era.Meanwhile,Article 1122 of the Civil Code provides institutional space for digital inheritance through the legislative model of“generalization+exclusion”,which reflects the rationality and scientificity of the legislation and is a progressive move.However,the legislative provisions of the Civil Code on digital property are relatively general,and the judicial decisions are not uniform due to the different understanding of the provisions in practice.This paper starts from the jurisprudence,through the case analysis,finds the crux of the digital inheritance,analyzes one by one and puts forward its own opinions.In the first part,from the judicial cases,through the combing of the cases related to the inheritance of digital heritage,it is concluded that in practice,there are disputes over the inheritability of digital heritage,inconsistency in the determination of the validity of the clause of“limitation of inheritance”in the network service agreement,and difficulties in the assessment of the value of digital heritage.In the second part,the inheritability of digital heritage is discussed.Firstly,the definition of digital heritage is clarified.Secondly,it is pointed out that digital heritage belongs to legal property in civil law,and regardless of its right attribute,it does not affect whether it can be the object of inheritance or not.Finally,it explains that Article 1122(2)of the Civil Code“shall not be inherited according to its nature”shall be understood as rights,obligations and legal relations involving an exclusive nature shall not be inherited.Therefore,this paper argues that the criterion for determining whether a digital heritage is inheritable or not should be whether or not it possesses an all-inclusive nature,and that a digital heritage with an all-inclusive nature is not inheritable,while a digital heritage that involves personal privacy should not be recognized as uninheritable ipso facto.In the third part,the mainstream network service agreements are analyzed firstly,and it is pointed out that most of the network service agreements contain clauses restricting heirs from inheriting digital inheritance,such as non-transferability and inheritance clauses of account numbers,and clauses separating the ownership of digital property from the right to use it,and so on.It then clarified that the ownership of digital property should be vested in the network users,and pointed out that,as network service agreements were form contracts,the“restriction on inheritance”clause did not follow the principle of fairness and was therefore invalid.Finally,it is proposed that the inheritance rights of heirs should be protected by increasing the public’s knowledge of the restriction of inheritance clauses,setting up the restriction of inheritance clauses in a reasonable manner,and interpreting these clauses in a reasonable manner.In the fourth part,firstly,it discusses the main body of inheritance of digital heritage and the issue of the subordination,pointing out that the heirs of digital heritage should be the legal heirs in reality.Secondly,in view of the difficulty in assessing the value of digital heritage in practice,the value of common digital property is identified and analyzed.Finally,it is pointed out that a reasonable mechanism for assessing the value of digital inheritance should be constructed by establishing a unified value assessment standard and a professional value assessment organization.更多还原