上海市第一中级人民法院认为，金某在与沈某婚姻关系存续期间赠与陶某大量财产，显然不是因日常生 活需要而处理夫妻共同财产的行为，且金某与陶某存在婚外情人关系，该赠与行为既侵犯了沈某的财产 权益，又违背公序良俗，应认定为无效，相应的款项应由陶某全额返还。据此，法院判决驳回上诉，维 持原判。 来源："上海一中法院"微信公众号、"南方都市报"微信公众号 编辑：符亚丽 日前，上海市第一中级人民法院公布多起婚姻家庭纠纷中妇女权益司法保护典型案例，其中已婚男子金 某擅自将婚内共同财产1900万余元赠与婚外第三者陶某，沈某妻子提起诉讼要求赠与无效，要求对方返 还财产，法院判定该赠与行为无效，相应的款项应由陶某全额返还。 相关案例显示，沈某（女）与金某（男）于1999年7月登记结婚，婚后生育一子一女。金某与陶某在 2015年左右发展成婚外情人关系，金某并向陶某赠与大额财产。金某于2022年5月死亡。沈某及子女提 起诉讼，要求确认金某对陶某的赠与行为无效，陶某返还受赠款1900万余元。 一审法院认为，金某擅自将共同财产赠与他人的赠与行为应为无效，陶某应全额返还夫妻共同财产。一 审法院扣除陶某向金某转回的540万余元后，判决金某向陶 ...

央视网消息：每天8点，央视网为您梳理24小时内发生在咱们身边的大小事儿。 ·外交部：日本右翼日益膨胀的核野心对世界和平稳定构成严重威胁。 ·公安部：重大跨境赌诈犯罪集团头目陈志被从柬埔寨押解回国。 ·商务部回应两用物项对日出口管制：制止"再军事化"，涉民事用途不受影响。 ·教育部：2026年将启动新一轮"双一流"高校建设。 ·强强联手！中国石化中国航油官宣重组。 ·《"高效办成一件事"重点事项"集成办"工作指南》《政务服务大厅集约化建设指南》两项推荐性国家标准近日发布实施。 ·我国公开发布2025年度《中国空间站科学研究与应用进展报告》。 ·2025年全国铁路旅客发送量超45亿人次。 ·严厉打击盗采盗挖行为，国务院安委办公布5起典型案例。 ·找矿新发现！我国铬铁矿与非常规油气勘查双获突破。 ·新疆生产建设兵团党委常委、副司令员李旭接受中央纪委国家监委审查调查。 ·美方强行带离委总统行动致100人死亡，马杜罗夫妇受伤。 ·《政治报·欧洲版》：美国或试图在数月内取得格陵兰岛控制权。 ·俄罗斯外交部：西方国家在乌克兰部署的军事单位、军事设施等都将被视为俄罗斯武装部队的合法作战目标。 ·美国盐湖城枪击事件致2死6伤。 ...

12月23日，北京互联网法院就"烟卡公益诉讼第一案"作出判决。就家长在某电商平台买到玩具"烟卡"一 事，判决明确，相关店铺向消费者退还货款，并驳回其他诉讼请求。 法院在判决书中长篇幅分析论证了为什么应禁止向未成年人销售烟卡，以及电商平台应履行的责任。不 过，从当前实测情况来看，常见的主流电商平台，包括本案涉及的这家电商平台，目前仍有烟卡售卖， 部分平台的临时屏蔽或下架措施接近失效，亦有平台借机推销烟嘴等产品。原告认为，互联网企业应该 履行社会责任，主动下架相关产品，同时，主管部门也应该采取措施敦促平台采取行动。 "烟卡"玩具在部分中小学生中的流行。 平台辩称没有法律法规认定烟卡侵害未成年人身心健康 去年5月28日，李恩泽从某电商平台的微信小程序下单，用23.04元购买到了40张"烟卡"。这些产品来自 平台的第三方店铺某烟具专营店，其宣称在售卖手工折叠儿童小玩具"烟卡"能让儿童远离手机，且"正 版、保真、真卡、稀有卡、非印刷"。李恩泽是中国控烟与健康协会公益法律专业委员会副主任委员兼 秘书长，也是一名未成年孩子的家长。 彼时，舆论关注到"烟卡"玩具在部分中小学生中的流行，包括李恩泽在内的控烟专家担忧，以儿童小玩 ...

浙江衢州开化县的涂某在相亲微信群中认识了蒋某。很快，涂某就在微信上正式表达了交往、共同生活 的意愿。 蒋某提出，涂某先给一些"彩礼"，两人一起生活一段时间看看。如果觉得合适，明年去领证，到时候再 另给彩礼18万元。 本文转自【人民网】； 交往的时候说："给我钱我才和你结婚。"最后婚没结，那这钱还能退还吗？ 一上来就要钱，对方是不是不太靠谱？但考虑到自己确实想结婚，涂某同意先给2万元。 法院会支持涂某的请求吗？借婚姻索取财物，和恋爱期间的自愿赠与该如何区分呢？ 法院经审理认为，蒋某构成借婚姻索取财物。民法典规定，违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效。本案 中，蒋某对双方的感情持漠然态度，仅仅是为了满足自身的物质欲望，借婚姻不断向涂某索取财物，这 不仅违反民法典规定，也违背婚姻伦理、违背公序良俗。 因此，涂某的赠与行为应认定无效。蒋某所得的5万余元款项，应当全额退还原告涂某。 然而，对于这5万余元，双方却各执一词。涂某认为这是蒋某借婚姻索取财物。民法典明确规定，禁止 借婚姻索取财物。如今婚没结成，钱款理应返还。而蒋某则认为这是双方恋爱期间的自愿赠与。如今赠 与行为已经完成，自然不需返还。 于是，涂某将蒋某告上了浙江省衢 ...

2025年12月3日 同日早些时间，智通财经调查发现，在多个电商平台检索"童颜娃娃""女童娃娃""幼态娃娃""萝莉娃 娃"等，跳出来的并非单纯的儿童玩偶，而是身高70厘米至140厘米、复刻儿童面庞与体态的硅胶或TPE 制品。这些打着"BJD手办""动漫人偶""二次元关节可动"标签的商品，价格从数百元到上千元不等，实 际是具备性功能、供成人使用的情趣用品。 此后，智通财经按照平台发货地址追踪至广东东莞、惠州两地的源头工厂，调查发现当地多家工厂生产 带有"儿童色情特征"娃娃，支持40厘米至170厘米身高定制，加热、夹吸等情趣功能明码标价，此外还 生产"孕妇娃娃"。 "女童保护"团队发起成立的北京众一公益基金会秘书长丁广泉认为，这一现象公然挑战公序良俗，冲击 社会对儿童的保护共识，散播儿童软色情风气。 目前，多家电商平台已处置下架"儿童形象情趣玩偶"。 据微信公众号"惠阳发布"消息，12月3日，惠阳区市场监督管理局发布《关于惠阳区迅速核查某企业违 规生产销售"情趣娃娃"的通报》。 通报显示，针对涉嫌生产售卖具有儿童色情特征的"情趣娃娃"的惠阳某企业，区联合调查组已要求企业 立即暂停生产，接受调查。 通报全文如下： ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights a contract dispute between a live-streaming host and a talent agency, focusing on the agency's unethical demands and the legal implications of such actions [1][2][5]. Group 1: Contract Details - In June 2023, Ms. Chu signed a one-year talent agency contract requiring her to complete 25 days of effective live streaming each month, with a minimum of 6 hours per day, and produce 21 qualified short videos, earning a guaranteed monthly income of 9,000 yuan plus gift sharing [1][3]. - The contract stipulated that if Ms. Chu terminated the agreement unilaterally, she would incur a significant penalty [1][3]. Group 2: Agency's Actions - In October 2023, the agency began instructing Ms. Chu to create a false "romantic relationship" with fans to solicit gifts, and even accessed her WeChat account to impersonate her in conversations with fans [1][4]. - Despite Ms. Chu's compliance with the contract, the agency deemed her live streams "invalid," severely impacting her income [4][5]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings - The agency filed a lawsuit claiming Ms. Chu breached the contract by stopping her live streams and sought 300,000 yuan in damages and 10,000 yuan in legal fees [1][4]. - Ms. Chu countered that the agency's actions constituted a breach of contract and abuse of rights, as they demanded unethical conduct and invalidated her streams without justification [2][4]. Group 4: Court's Ruling - The court ruled that the agency's demands violated public morals and constituted a fundamental breach of contract, thus Ms. Chu's cessation of streaming was not a breach [2][5]. - The contract had naturally expired before the lawsuit, so the court did not need to rule on its termination, ultimately dismissing all claims from the agency [5].

合同签订后，褚女士便开始了直播工作。起初一切顺利，但到了同年10月，经纪公司开始玩起了"套 路"。为了获得更多收益，经纪公司工作人员开始要求褚女士与粉丝假意建立"恋爱关系"以索取打赏， 甚至直接登录褚女士的微信账号冒充其本人与粉丝聊天索要礼物。 面对经纪公司的这些"操作"，褚女士明确表示拒绝。随后，即使褚女士按照合同约定正常进行直播，但 经纪公司却判定她的直播为"无效"，对其收入造成极大影响。褚女士认为经纪公司的行为严重违约且违 背道德，在几次沟通无果后，身心俱疲的褚女士停止了直播。 经纪公司认为，褚女士擅自停播，已经违反了合同约定，遂向人民法院提起诉讼，要求解除双方合同关 系，并向褚女士索赔违约金30万元及律师费1万元。 褚女士认为，经纪公司违约在先。公司不仅对其进行违反公序良俗的直播指导，且在没有任何依据的情 形下多次判定其直播无效，并要求其重新开播，这些行为已构成滥用合同权利。 "家人们点点关注！""榜一大哥加微信私聊哦！" 在网络直播行业经济蓬勃发展的当下，部分经纪公司为追求流量和打赏收益，竟要求签约主播与粉 丝"假恋爱"。 12月2日，上海市宝山区人民法院向新京报贝壳财经记者披露，审结了一起因经纪公 ...

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled against the second son’s claim for inheritance due to his failure to fulfill filial duties towards the deceased parent [1] Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Tianjin Ninghe District People's Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the second son for inheritance and division of the deceased's assets [1] - The court found no evidence that the second son contributed to the construction of the house for the elderly parent, nor that the house was part of the inheritance [1] - Testimonies from the children's uncles confirmed that the second son did not fulfill his obligations to care for the elderly parent [1] Group 2: Filial Responsibilities - The court emphasized the importance of filial piety and the traditional virtue of caring for the elderly [2] - The ruling serves to uphold public order and morality by reinforcing the expectation of children to support their parents [2]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruling emphasizes the importance of familial responsibilities over property rights, highlighting the conflict between legal ownership and ethical obligations within family relationships [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Context - The daughter, as the registered owner of the property, has a legal basis for her claim; however, the acquisition of the property is fundamentally a gift based on familial ties, which carries both emotional and protective significance [2]. - The court ruled against the daughter's request to sell the property, citing the principle of public order and good morals, which underscores the expectation of filial piety and care for the elderly [1][3]. Group 2: Family Dynamics - The case illustrates the balance between rights and obligations within family relationships, as the daughter has a legal right to the property but is also bound by the obligation to care for her ailing father [2]. - The emotional distance between the daughter and father, exacerbated by their family circumstances, has led to a perception of the property as merely a financial asset rather than a familial legacy [3]. Group 3: Social Implications - The ruling serves as a reminder of the societal expectation for mutual support and care within families, reinforcing traditional values of respect for the elderly [3]. - The case reflects broader societal concerns about the erosion of family bonds and the potential moral implications of prioritizing personal gain over familial duty [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a civil lending dispute between Zhang and Xie, which escalated due to cultural misunderstandings regarding traditional festival dates for repayments, ultimately resolved through judicial intervention and cultural guidance [3][4][5]. Group 1: Dispute Background - The dispute began in early 2024 when Zhang and Xie entered the execution phase of their civil lending agreement, which stipulated monthly repayments of 2,500 yuan from March 2024 to July 2027 [3]. - The agreement aimed to alleviate Xie's immediate repayment pressure while ensuring Zhang's debt recovery, reflecting the traditional wisdom of "harmony is precious" [3]. Group 2: Escalation of Conflict - Tensions arose as Xie chose traditional festival dates, such as Qingming and Zhongyuan, for repayments, which Zhang found offensive, leading to further conflicts [4]. - The court intervened multiple times, urging both parties to respect the cultural significance of these festivals, but the situation worsened during the Zhongyuan Festival when Xie again made a payment, turning the festival into a tool for personal grievances [4]. Group 3: Resolution Process - The court issued a warning to Xie for his inappropriate behavior, leading him to recognize his mistake and submit a written apology, acknowledging that his actions violated public order and morals [5]. - The judge encouraged Zhang to let go of past grievances and emphasized the core values of traditional festivals, while motivating Xie to rectify his actions through prompt repayment [5]. Group 4: Final Outcome - By September 2025, Xie paid off the remaining 55,000 yuan in two installments, completing the repayment plan 22 months ahead of schedule, thus resolving the dispute influenced by cultural misunderstandings [5]. - The case highlights the importance of integrating legal authority with cultural understanding in dispute resolution, promoting respect for traditional values while ensuring legal compliance [6].