“房屋登记行政确认案”评析

发布时间：2018-05-23 08:31

本文选题：房屋登记 + 审查标准　；参考：《湖南大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文选取的房屋登记行政确认案例中，登记机关是否履行了审查责任与善意取得制度能否适用本案是案件原被告双方争议的焦点，，也是本论文分析研究的关键。一方面我国物权法对于登记机关的审查标准是形式审查还是实质审查没有明确的规定，造成登记机关为减轻自己工作量和法律责任，基本采取以形式审查为标准。而我国物权登记法律制度现实却要加强实质审查，以体现登记制度与物权法律体系的衔接。因此，确定实质的审查标准是完善登记制度的重要手段。另一方面，我国善意取得制度是建立在债权形式主义为主，意思主义为辅物权变动模式基础之上，是以无权处分为前提条件，所以对转让合同性质的判断直接决定了能否适用善意取得。但是在理论和实践中，对无权处分的判断存在颇多争议的问题，首先是无权处分性质的认定，其次是善意取得中的无权处分与合同法中无权处分合同的衔接问题，最后是无权处分转让合同效力对善意取得的适用的影响。在认定无权处分性质时，要严格区分无权处分行为与无权代理行为，因为无权代理行为也有处分之行为，但是它不属于善意取得制度中之无权处分，故没有适用善意取得的可能。对第三人的善意的判断也是一个复杂的问题，涉及到善意的判断标准、判断的时点等问题。本案中，一审法官认定被告履行了合理的审查职责，登记行为合法有效，第三人适用善意取得保有受让的房屋所有权。但是法官将无权代理行为断章取义解释为“无权”和“处分”，进而认为符合善意取得制度，是一个严重裁判错误。
[Abstract]:In the case of administrative confirmation of housing registration, whether the registration authority has fulfilled the responsibility of examination and whether the system of acquisition in good faith can be applied in this case is the focus of the dispute between the original defendant and the defendant in the case, and is also the key to the analysis and study of this paper. On the one hand, there is no clear stipulation on whether the examination standard of the registration authority is formal or substantive, which causes the registration authority to take the formal examination as the standard in order to reduce its workload and legal responsibility. However, the reality of the legal system of real right registration in our country should strengthen the substantive examination in order to reflect the link between the registration system and the legal system of real right. Therefore, the determination of substantive standards is an important means to improve the registration system. On the other hand, the system of bona fide acquisition in our country is based on the formalism of creditor's rights, and on the basis of the mode of change of property right supplemented by the doctrine of will, which is based on the unauthorized disposition. Therefore, the nature of the transfer contract directly determines the nature of the application of bona fide acquisition. However, in theory and practice, there are many controversial issues in the judgment of unauthorized disposition, first, the determination of the nature of unauthorized disposition, and secondly, the connection between unauthorized disposition in bona fide acquisition and unauthorized disposition contract in contract law. Finally, the effect of the transfer contract of unauthorized disposition on the application of bona fide acquisition. In determining the nature of unauthorized disposition, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between unauthorized disposition and unauthorized agency, because the unauthorized agency also has the disposition, but it does not belong to the unauthorized disposition in the bona fide acquisition system. Therefore, there is no possibility of bona fide acquisition. The judgment of the third person's goodwill is also a complicated problem, involving the standard of good will and the time point of judgment. In this case, the judge of first instance found that the defendant had performed a reasonable duty of examination and that the registration was lawful and effective, and the third party applied bona fide to acquire the ownership of the house that had been transferred. However, the judge interprets the act of unauthorized agency as "unauthorized" and "punishment", and further considers that it is a serious judgment error to conform to the system of bona fide acquisition.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D920.5;D923.2;D922.181

【参考文献】