1996 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
Research on the Matrimonial Property Relations in Modern Japan
| Project/Area Number |
07620002
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Fundamental law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Miyagi University of Education |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
KONDO Kayoko Miyagi University of Education, Education, Professor, 教育学部, 教授 (40153712)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1995 – 1996
|
| Keywords | Matrimonial property relations |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
First, we considered that how the matrimonial property relations were evolved after the enforcement of the Civil Code (1898) by analyzing the transition of judicial decisions.
The matrimonial property relations prescribed in the Civil Code were as follows. Every wife, even if she was the head of a house (Ie), had to obtain her husband's consent to carry out some juristic acts and her property was under the control of her husband. So, a husband could unify the property of his wife to that of his own and could employ it. The system that was putting a wife under disability, the intention of the legislators was to prevent a wife from doing juristic acts against her husband's will, so that he could unify and manage the family property.
But, actually, the system did more harm than good for the safety of transactions by the cancellation of the act done by a wife without her husband's consent. So, in the judgments, they eased the form of the husband's consent or denied the cancellation after the marriage was disolved, so that the safety of transactions could be protected. Although, revising the provisions was necessary to solve the problems fundamentally.
Second, we examined the work of amending the Civil Code during the Taisho and the early Showa era. The gists of the amendment of the Civil Code (1925) intended to extend the legal capacity of a wife and to abolish a husband's right for the management of the property of his wife. It could mean the extension of the legal rights of a wife. But, for the legislators, the main aim of the amendment was to protect the safety of transactions.
|
