基于赠与合同的无偿性,世界各国或各地区的立法大都设有赠与人撤销权制度。如《德国民法典》第530～534条,我国台湾地区所谓“民法”第408条、第416～417条、第419～420条等都规定了赠与人撤销权制度。我国作为一个立法后进但同时却可发挥后发优势的国家,也接受了这一制度,于合同法第186条以及第192～194条分别规定了任意撤销权与法定撤销权。合同法确立撤销权制度的价值不容置疑,然而,由于该规定是在理论研究未臻明确情况下的仓促之作,与该制度的出台相伴随的是对诸如大至撤销权的名称、与任意撤销权的存否攸关的赠与合同的性质,小至法定撤销权的某一具体适用要件之类问题的认识上的层出不穷的分歧,这极大的影响了赠与人撤销权制度的适用。有鉴于此,本文拟运用比较法、实证分析等方法从民法的撤销权体系以及赠与合同制度体系的视角来厘清对赠与人撤销权制度认识上的疑点与误区,以建立起科学的赠与人撤回权制度理论。 Based on the gratuitous nature of gift contracts, most countries or regions in the world have established the system of withdrawal of the grantor. For example, articles 530-534 of the German Civil Code stipulate that the so-called “civil law ” article 408, 416 ~ 417, articles 419 ~ 420 in Taiwan of our country stipulate the system of withdrawal of the grantor. China, as a backward country but at the same time it can exert the backward advantages, also accepted this system. It stipulated the arbitrary right of withdrawal and statutory withdrawal respectively under Article 186 and Article 192 to 194 of the Contract Law. The value of establishing the right of revocation in the contract law can not be questioned. However, due to the rush made in the absence of theoretical research, the promulgation of the system is accompanied by the notion of the right of revocation, The existence of the right of withdrawal is different from the nature of the gift contract, and there are many different opinions on the issues such as the specific application of statutory revocation right, which greatly affects the applicability of the system of withdrawal of the grantor. In view of this, this paper intends to use the comparative law, empirical analysis and other methods from the perspective of the civil law of the right of revocation and the system of gift contract system to clarify the suspect and misunderstanding of the grantor's right of revocation system to establish a scientific withdrawal of the donor Right system theory.