Research On The Effect Of The Guardian Disposing Minor’s Property

The guardian assumes the responsibility of property guardianship,and it is inevitable that the property of the minor will be disposed of.In my country,the legal basis for determining the validity of such a disciplinary action is Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Civil Code.According to this article,if the guardian’s disciplinary action is to safeguard the interests of the minor,there is no doubt that the action is valid.It is not for the sake of safeguarding its interests or even harming its interests,and there is a dispute over what determination should be made of the validity of the act.To determine the validity of the act in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Civil Code,it is first necessary to analyze the composition of Article 35 of the Civil Code.The main problems include: the guardian,as the subject of property disposal,if two or more people jointly When exercising guardianship,whether the property of the minor needs to be disposed of by all guardians;what is the specific scope of the minor’s property,whether the guardian can dispose of all the minor’s property,and what should be applied to dispose of the property shared with the minor Rules;what the term "sanction" means and how it manifests in practice.Since Article 35,Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code,which is an injunction clause,is principled and influenced by traditional concepts,these issues are not self-evident.Through the review of judicial judgments,it can be found that there are two key factors that affect the court’s determination of the validity of such property dispositions: first,the criteria for judging interests are not clear;second,there are differences in the path of validity determination.Regarding the former factor,there is no clear provision in the law,and there are several academic viewpoints in the theoretical circle,mainly including four theories: the basis of paid and unpaid,the basis of legal rights and obligations,the basis of necessity and the basis of visibility,but each theory has its own shortcomings.The research results of Japanese civil law on this issue are quite rich,and two theories of formal benchmark and substantive benchmark have gradually formed in the application of the rule of opposite interests.Therefore,the author believes that it is possible to learn from the relevant experience of Japanese civil law,use the substantive benchmark to make judgments under the "best interests principle",and make specific analysis according to the different purposes of punishment.For the latter factor,since the determination of the effectiveness of property disposal act has the maintenance of the interests of all parties,there are uniformly valid paths,normative attribute analysis paths,unauthorized disposal paths and unauthorized agency paths in the path of effectiveness determination.The main reason to think that the disciplinary actions are all effective is to protect the security of transactions and at the same time protect the interests of third parties.The normative attribute analysis path attempts to characterize the normative nature of Article 35,paragraph 1 of the Civil Code,and determine its effectiveness from the perspective of normative attribute analysis.Both the unauthorized disposition and the unauthorized agency path are analyzed from the perspective of the nature of the disposition behavior,and the legal norms on which the validity is determined can be found out by analyzing the nature of the behavior.By analyzing various paths,the author believes that the uniformly effective path completely ignores the protection of the interests of minors,and the criteria for judging normative attributes are not clear.The unauthorized disposition in most cases denies the complete property rights enjoyed by minors.Therefore,the unauthorized agent path should be adopted in the selection of the punishment path.