【作者】 王宇；

【导师】 袁敏殊；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2019， 硕士

【摘要】 信用权是指个体就其所具有的经济能力在社会上获得相应的信赖与评价所享有的保有、利用与维护的权利。市场经济体制下,信用权是每一个民事主体立足社会和从事经济活动最基本的权利。比较世界主要国家和地区关于信用权保护的做法。英美法系国家是将对个人信用权保护纳入到个人数据保护、征信业管理法律法规中。大陆法系国家的德国是在侵权责任法中规定了信用权侵权构成要件和法律后果。日本是将信用权作为名誉权下的子权利来保护信用利益。我国台湾则是在民法中明确将信用权规定为一项具体人格权。相比于英美国家对个人数据、个人征信单行立法以及日本的名誉权保护等间接保护模式,我国台湾直接将信用规定为具体人格权以及德国在侵权责任法中明确侵害信用权的构成要件和法律后果,这种直接保护模式能够更好地对信用权人的利益予以保护。作为一项十分重要而又特殊的权利,我国现行的法律法规却没有关于信用权的明确规定,只是在一些法律法规中作了原则性、宣示性的规定。如《民法总则》《合同法》《反不正当竞争法》等。司法实践中对待信用权纠纷,也是个案采取不同的纠纷解决模式。以笔者收集的案例,主要包括名誉权模式、一般人格权模式、侵权责任纠纷模式以及合同纠纷解决模式。不同的纠纷解决方式对信用权保护都是存在不足的。以名誉权模式解决信用权纠纷,认为侵害信用利益的行为应像侵害名誉权一样以为不特定公众所知晓为要件,而信用侵害只要为信用交易对象所知晓,即对主体的经济能力产生质疑,无须在不特定主体间进行传播。同时适用名誉权模式审理信用权纠纷,其裁判结果沿用了传统人格权保护模式,缺乏对信用权人经济利益的救济。适用一般人格权模式审理信用权纠纷,存在着一般人格权法律依据不同以及侵权行为违法性认定困难,其可能导致法官自由裁量权被滥用。适用侵权责任模式解决信用权纠纷存在和名誉权模式一样对权利人经济利益救济的不足以及侵权责任主体和责任范围认定不清的问题。适用合同纠纷模式审理信用权纠纷则背离了信用侵权的实质,忽视对受害人人格利益的补偿。目前我国的信用权法律保护存着在立法可操作性不强、司法间接保护方式混乱、经济损害救济不足等问题。有关信用权独立是我国学界长期争论的议题。支持者认为我国现阶段间接保护模式不利于信用权益保护,信用权独立有利于社会征信体系的建立,促进市场经济的发展。反对者认为我国社会目前信用基础不牢,司法经验缺乏,创设信用权可能影响民法体系安排。截至目前,最新的《民法典人格权编(草案)》三审稿则是将信用纳入了名誉权范畴。结合我国信用权保护的现状,借鉴其他国家经验的基础上,笔者认为完善我国信用权的民法保护,首先是要在人格权法中明确信用权为独立人格权,界定信用权的概念及具体内容,避免因概念模糊等问题导致权利冲突及司法裁判不统一。其次是细化信用侵权的构成要件,探讨信用侵权行为类型、损害后果、因果关系相当性判断以及行为人主观过错的认定,最后由于信用权区别与传统人格权,具有很强的经济利益属性,所以司法实践中应当注重对受害人经济利益的补偿。更多还原

【Abstract】 The right of credit refers to the right of the individual to keep,utilize and maintain the corresponding trust and appraisal in the society.Under the market economic system,the right of credit is the most basic right of every civil subject to be based on the social and economic activities.A comparison of the practice of the protection of credit rights in major countries and regions of the world.The common law system states that the protection of personal credit rights and interests is incorporated into the law of the management of the personal credit of the United States.In the civil law system,Germany is the component and legal consequence of the infringement of the right of credit in the tort liability law.Japan is to protect the credit right as a sub-right of the right of reputation Use equity.Taiwan in our country explicitly defines the credit right as a specific personality right in civil law.Compared with the indirect protection mode of individual credit information legislation and japan’s right of reputation protection in British and American countries,Taiwan has directly defined credit as the specific personality rights and the constitutive elements and legal consequences of Germany’s infringement of credit rights in tort liability law.As a very important and special right,the existing laws and regulations in our country have no explicit provisions on the right to credit,but in some laws and regulations,the provisions of principle and declaration are set out.Such as the General Provisions of Civil Law,the Contract Law,the Law on Unfair Competition,and the like.The judicial practice treats the dispute of the right to credit,and also the case adopts different dispute settlement mode.The cases collected by the author mainly include the reputation model,the general personality right model,the tort liability dispute mode and the contract dispute settlement mode.Different methods of dispute settlement are not sufficient for the protection of credit rights.To Solve the Dispute of the Right of Credit in the Model of Honorary Right In order to infringe on the interests of credit,the behavior should be regarded as an element of infringing the right of reputation,and as long as the credit infringement is known by the object of credit transaction,it questions the economic ability of the subject and does not need to spread among the unspecified subjects.At the same time,the reputation right model is applied to hear the credit right dispute,and the judgment results follow the traditional personality right protection mode,which lacks the relief to the economic interests of the credit right person.There are different legal basis of general personality right and difficulty in determining the illegality of tort,which may lead to the abuse of judge’s discretion in the application of general personality right mode to hear credit right disputes.To solve the problem of applicable Tort liability Model The dispute of credit right is the same as the mode of reputation right,which is the same as the lack of relief for the economic interests of the oblige and the unclear identification of the subject and scope of tort liability.The application of contract dispute mode to the trial of credit right disputes deviates from the essence of credit infringement and neglects the compensation for the personal interests of the victims.At present,there are some problems in the legal protection of credit rights in our country,such as the maneuverability of legislation is not strong,the mode of judicial indirect protection is chaotic,and the relief of economic damage is insufficient.The independence of credit right has been a controversial issue in the academic circles of our country for a long time.Proponents think that the indirect protection mode of our country at this stage is not conducive to the protection of credit rights and interests,and the independence of credit rights is conducive to the establishment of social credit system.Promote the development of market economy.Opponents think that the credit foundation of our society is not stable and the judicial experience is lack,and the creation of credit right may affect the arrangement of civil law system.Up to now,the latest three drafts of Personality right(draft)of Civil Code bring credit into the category of reputation right.Combined with the present situation of credit right protection in our country and drawing lessons from the experience of other countries,the author thinks that to perfect the civil law protection of credit right in our country,first of all,we should make it clear that credit right is independent personality right in personality law,define the concept and concrete content of credit right,and avoid the conflict of rights and the disunity of judicial judgment caused by vague concept Secondly,it is to refine the constituent elements of credit tort,to explore the types of credit infringement,damage consequences,causality appropriate judgment and the subjective fault of the actor.Finally,because of the difference between credit right and traditional personality right,it has a strong attribute of economic interests,so we should pay attention to victimization in judicial practice.Compensation for people’s economic interests.更多还原