我国所有权保留买卖中取回权的研究

发布时间：2018-03-22 23:34

本文选题：所有权保留　切入点：取回权　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：当前的中国经济中,间接融资的比重过高,这不仅加大了许多银行坏账的机率,而且也使得小型公司获取资金的成本过高,不利于小型公司的做大做强和长久发展。并且随着中国消费者购买力的膨胀,消费信贷行业也突飞猛进、蒸蒸日上。在这样一个大背景下,我国的所有权保留买卖日益兴盛。因为所有权保留买卖既缓解了出卖人对交易风险的担忧,也满足了买受人对资金的需求,是一种迎合多方需求双赢的制度,该制度属于物权与债权相契合的范畴,满足了经济消费领域的需要,同时也伴随着许多问题的出现。《关于审理买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》(以下简称《买卖合同司法解释》)是最高院在2012年颁布的,该解释首次建立了我国所有权保留买卖的框架,将经济生活中保留买卖的现象纳入了法律规范之中。但《买卖合同司法解释》中对所有权保留的规定仅有4条,这4条是否足以指引司法实践、定纷止争,还存在哪些漏洞亟待弥补和改进,正是本篇论文的创作初衷。取回权是所有权保留中的核心,起到牵一发而动全身的关键作用。它既是出卖人维护自身权益的手段,又极有可能侵害到买受人的合法权益,伴随着取回权的行使,有关取回权的行使条件、范围、程序和风险负担问题就亟需细化明确。在保留卖主取回标的物之后,又涉及到买受人能否再次占有标的物和出卖人就物求偿实现方式等问题,以及取回权与损害赔偿请求权是否存在竞合等问题。本文正是从取回权入手,以取回权为核心展开对所有权保留买卖的研究。本文以问题意识为导向,将全文分为三个部分。第一部分:性质的界定是问题展开论述的基础,该部分评析了各家学说,阐释了为什么我国所有权保留的性质是附条件的所有权转移。为什么我国取回权的性质属于就物求偿。第二部分:围绕着取回权的行使探究了以下几个问题。第一,在破产情况下,取回权的行使是否受影响?本文区分了保留卖主破产和保留买主破产两种情况,分别加以论述。第二,取回权能否对抗善意取得制度?不能。延长型所有权保留能否规避第三人取得所有权?应区分商事领域和消费领域,视情况而定。第三,取回权的行使程序。在现行制度下出卖人行使取回权的成本过高,本文建议可以将取回权的行使纳入支付令的范畴。第四,在添附的情形下,取回权的范围有哪些?第五,取回权行使过程中产生的风险由谁负担?应视违约的程度,综合来判断。第三部分:取回权与其相关权利之间的关系。第一,取回权的行使损害了买受人的期待利益,应在取回权和期待利益之间寻找平衡点。第二,取回标的物后是否必须预留回赎期间?不是,应以标的物的性质做区分,回赎期经过后的法律效果根据买受人的选择而有所不同。第三,标的物再次出卖后的利益归属问题。第四,取回权与损害赔偿请求权是否发生权利竞合?要看保留买主承担了违约责任后是否消除了行使取回权的事由。
[Abstract]:The current Chinese economy, the high proportion of indirect financing, which not only increases the probability of a lot of bad debts, but also makes small companies access to capital cost is too high, is not conducive to small business bigger and stronger and lasting development. With the expansion and Chinese purchasing power of consumers, the consumer credit industry by leaps and bounds, on the upgrade in this. A background, China's growing prosperity. Because of the retention of title retention of title can relieve the seller of transaction risk concerns, but also to meet the buyer's demand for capital, is a win-win system cater to various needs, the system of creditor's rights and property rights belong to fit the category, to meet the the need of economic consumption, but also accompanied by many problems. The legal issues on the trial of business contract dispute case applicable interpretation "(hereinafter referred to as the" contract for the sale of Justice Is the Supreme Court Interpretation ") enacted in 2012, the first established the framework of our retention, the economic life of the retention phenomenon in legal norms. But the contract for the sale of" judicial interpretation of the provisions on the ownership reservation is only 4, the 4 is sufficient to guide the judicial practice. Settle disputes, there are loopholes and needs to make up for improvement, it is this paper's original creation. The recall right is the core of the retention of title, plays a key role in QianYiFaErDongQuanShen. It is a seller to safeguard their own interests, and is likely to infringe the buyer the legitimate rights and interests, with the exercise of the recall right, the scope of the exercise conditions, the recall right, procedure and risk burden need refinement clear. In reserve the seller to retrieve the subject matter, but also relates to the buyer can once again have accounted for the subject matter and The seller will issue the mode of realization, and recall right and claim for damages if there is concurrence problems. This article tries to recall right to get right to the core of the retention of ownership. In this paper, the problem of consciousness as a guide will be divided into three parts. The first part: the nature the definition of the problem is discussed based on the part of the analysis of the various theories, the nature explains why our ownership reservation is the transfer of ownership of conditional nature of recall right. Why our country belongs to the matter. The second part explores the following issues: exercise around the recall right. First, in the case of bankruptcy next, the exercise of the recall right is affected? This paper distinguishes between bankruptcy and bankruptcy reservations Seller Buyer two situations are discussed. Second, the recall right against the bona fide acquisition system can not? . prolonged retention of title could circumvent the third people to obtain ownership? Should distinguish between commercial and consumption, depending on the situation. In third, the program of exerting the right. Under the current system of exerting the right of Seller cost is too high, we can exercise the recall right into the order of payment category. In fourth. The enclosed case, what are the scope of the recall right? Fifth, the exercise of the right to retrieve the risk generated in the process of who is responsible? Should be considered to determine the extent of breach of contract, comprehensive. The third part: the relationship between the recall right and related rights. First, take the exercise of the right to damages the buyer's expectation interests should be looking for the balance between recall right and expected benefit. Second, retrieve the subject matter whether must be reserved for redemption period? Not, should be based on the nature of the subject matter separates the legal effect after the redemption period according to the buyer's choice There are differences. Third, the issue of interest attribution after the sale of the subject matter. Fourth, whether the right of claim is concurrence between the right of recovery and the claim for damage compensation? It depends on whether the buyer retains the right to exercise the recall right after assuming the responsibility for breach of contract.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】