论文部分内容阅读
根据德国联邦最高法院2005年2月23日的判决,抚养费债务人在严重负债的情况下负有启动剩余债务免除程序的义务,这一义务的法律基础是德国《民法典》第1603条第2款规定的抚养费债务人的严格义务。通过启动剩余债务免除程序,一方面抚养费债务人可以毫无顾忌地向第三方债权人主张其禁止扣押收入,其抚养费的支付能力也由此被提高,而抚养费债权人也可以通过德国《民事诉讼法》第850c条规定的禁止扣押收入与抚养费债务人必要生活费用之间的差额得到满足;另一方面,抚养费债务人可以通过剩余债务免除程序免除其未履行的债务,经济上也可以重新开始,从而不会因为向第三方债权人主张禁止扣押收入而陷入更严重的负债境地。因此让抚养费债务人在严重负债的情况下负担启动剩余债务免除程序的义务对其而言也是合理的、可接受的。让抚养费债务人负担启动剩余债务免除程序的义务具有严格的前提条件。只有当剩余债务免除程序对于抚养费债务人而言是被允许的,并且抚养费债务人未主动尝试或无法与其债权人达成合理的债务清偿方案时,其才负担启动剩余债务免除程序的义务。但当抚养费债务人举证证明,这一义务在个案中对其而言无法接受时,其就不再负担这一义务。如果抚养费债务人违反了这一(非真正)义务,那么不论其是否已申请启动剩余债务免除程序,对其相关法律关系的处理将视同其已申请启动剩余债务免除程序。
According to the judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of February 23, 2005, the sponsor's debtor, in the case of a serious debt, has the obligation to start the remaining debt relief proceedings, the legal basis of which is the German Civil Code article 1603, paragraph 2 The obligation to provide for the maintenance of the debtor as provided for in paragraph By initiating the remaining debt relief procedure, on the one hand, the sponsor debtor can stand unscrupulously against the third-party creditor forbidding the seizure of income, thereby increasing his ability to pay child support payments and raising his creditors through the German "civil suit The difference between the income forbidden from seizure and the necessary cost of living for the dependent debtor as provided for in article 850c of the Act is satisfied; on the other hand, the sponsor debtor may waive his outstanding debt through the remaining debt relief procedure and may start afresh economically So as not to fall into a more serious debt position as a result of the prohibition on the seizure of income from third-party creditors. It is therefore reasonable and acceptable for the obligation of a dependent child liability holder to start the remaining debt relief proceedings in the event of a serious indebtedness. There is a strict prerequisite for the obligation of the sponsor debtor to start the remaining debt relief procedure. It only incurs the obligation to initiate the remaining debt relief procedure only if the remaining debt relief procedure is allowed for the maintenance debtor and the child support debtor has not voluntarily tried or is unable to reach a reasonable debt repayment plan with its creditors. However, when the sponsor debtor proves that the obligation was unacceptable to him in the individual case, he would no longer be able to afford the obligation. If a sponsor debtor violates this (not a real) obligation, its legal relationship, regardless of whether it has applied to initiate the remaining debt relief process, will be treated as if it had applied to initiate the remaining debt relief process.