我国信息化时代下的网络司法拍卖研究

发布时间：2018-06-23 22:09

本文选题：网络司法拍卖 + 委托拍卖　；参考：《江西财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：民诉法关于“人民法院应当拍卖被查封、扣押的财产”和“可以委托有关单位变卖或自行变卖”的规定,为法院开展司法拍卖改革提供了遐想的空间,而民诉法解释关于可以由符合条件的拍卖公司拍卖,也可以决定由法院自己拍卖的规定,弥补了法院自行开展网拍在法律依据上的空白。本文以网络司法拍卖的定义、特征为切入点,对比了网络司法拍卖与网络拍卖及与传统自行拍卖的相同和不同之处,分析了网拍产生的社会背景,综合分析了我国网络司法拍卖在立法和实践上的不足,即选择拍卖方式的标准不明确、参与主体间法律关系不清、参与主体和客体存在局限性、竞买人权利救济渠道模糊、监督与管理机制的缺位等。在考察国外网络司法拍卖立法例的基础上,结合我国司法拍卖的实践现状,提出应该从构建程序性与实体性规则两方面着手,完善我国的网络司法拍卖制度。在程序性规则方面:一要明确网络司法拍卖的适用范围;二要建立网络司法拍卖平台的准入与退出机制;三要建立拍卖信息公示制度,包括明确首次和非首次拍卖应当公示的信息内容、严格停止或撤回拍卖信息的发布;四要规范网络异常应对流程,包括探索建立法院自己的网络司法拍卖平台、建立网络异常申报机制和处理规则。在实体性规则方面:一是厘清网络司法拍卖各主体间的法律关系。即法院与竞买人之间应当是实施者与参与者的关系、网络交易平台提供者与法院之间应当是辅助与被辅助的关系、网络交易平台提供者与竞买人仅产生间接联系;二是完善网络司法拍卖监管体系,包括明确网络司法拍卖的监管主体、监管对象及监管内容;三是确认网络司法拍卖的法律效果。即明确买受人对拍卖物的取得方式为原始取得的前提下,既无物的瑕疵担保请求权,也无权利瑕疵担保请求权。
[Abstract]:The provisions of the people's Law on "the people's Court shall auction the seized and seized property" and "may entrust the relevant units to sell or sell on their own" provide a room for the courts to carry out judicial auction reform. The civil action law explains that the auction can be carried out by the eligible auction company or the court can decide to auction itself, which makes up the gap in the legal basis for the court to carry out the racquet itself. Based on the definition and characteristics of online judicial auction, this paper compares the similarities and differences between online judicial auction and online auction and traditional self-auction, and analyzes the social background of the emergence of racquet. This paper comprehensively analyzes the shortcomings in legislation and practice of our country's network judicial auction, that is, the standard of choosing auction method is not clear, the legal relationship between participants is unclear, the subject and object of participation are limited, and the channel of right relief for bidders is unclear. The absence of supervision and management mechanism. On the basis of investigating the legislative cases of foreign network judicial auction and combining the present situation of judicial auction in our country, this paper puts forward that we should start from the construction of procedural and substantive rules to perfect the system of network judicial auction in our country. In terms of procedural rules: first, it is necessary to clarify the scope of application of the online judicial auction; second, to establish the access and exit mechanism of the network judicial auction platform; third, to establish the auction information publicity system, Including clarifying the information content that should be published for the first and non-first auctions, strictly stopping or withdrawing the issuance of auction information; fourth, standardizing the network abnormal response process, including exploring the establishment of the court's own online judicial auction platform, Establish network anomaly declaration mechanism and deal with rules. In the aspect of substantive rules, the first is to clarify the legal relationship between various subjects of network judicial auction. That is, the relationship between the court and the bidder should be between the executor and the participant, the relationship between the provider of the online trading platform and the court should be auxiliary and the relationship between the provider of the online trading platform and the bidder should only be indirect. The second is to perfect the supervision system of network judicial auction, including defining the subject of supervision, the object of supervision and the content of supervision, and the third is to confirm the legal effect of network judicial auction. That is to say, under the premise that the buyer acquires the auctioneers in the original way, there is neither the right of claim for defective guarantee nor the right of claim for guarantee of defect.
【学位授予单位】：江西财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.2

【参考文献】