财宝概念研究两题

发布时间：2018-02-17 06:07

本文关键词： 财宝埋藏物严格财宝非严格财宝遗忘物　出处：《现代法学》2017年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：来自西方的财宝概念与我国本土的埋藏物概念一度契合,所以,最初把财宝翻译为埋藏物是正确的。但随着实践的发展,财宝的概念在客体的范围上、在客体的存在空间上、在客体的古旧度上、在有无所有权前手上,都与埋藏物的概念不同。"财宝"的外延大于"埋藏物",所以,我国在未来制定民法典时,应放弃埋藏物的概念,改采财宝的概念。此外,财宝可分为严格财宝和非严格财宝,后者严格说来是遗忘物,我国立法区分了两者,但我国物权法理论尚未做到这一点,所以,我国学者并不认为严格财宝是无主物,由此发生了不必要地无限寻找藏宝者的继承人的错误判例,因此,要把财宝与遗忘物区分开来。进而应更新我国物权法理论中的财宝构成要件理论,增加"古旧"的要件,把20年作为古旧的标准。并建立准财宝的概念涵盖新的被发现物。
[Abstract]:The concept of treasure from the West once coincided with the concept of buried objects in China, so it was correct to translate treasure into buried objects at first. But with the development of practice, the concept of treasure is in the scope of object and the existence space of object. In terms of the ancient degree of the object, the concept of "treasure" is different from that of buried object before it has ownership. The extension of "treasure" is greater than that of "buried object". Therefore, when China formulates the civil code in the future, it should give up the concept of buried object. Change the concept of treasure collection. In addition, treasure can be divided into strict treasure and non-strict treasure, the latter strictly speaking is forgotten, our legislation distinguishes the two, but our property law theory has not yet done this, so, Chinese scholars do not think that strict treasure is the subject matter, thus there is an unnecessarily unlimited search for the successor of the treasure collector's wrong case, therefore, In order to distinguish the treasure from the forgotten, we should update the theory of the constitutive elements of the treasure in the theory of real right law of our country, add the elements of the "ancient", regard 20 years as the standard of the old, and establish the concept of quasi-treasure to cover the new found things.
【作者单位】：厦门大学法学院;
【分类号】：D913

【参考文献】