特殊动产一物数卖的所有权变动规则研究

发布时间：2018-04-17 11:58

本文选题：特殊动产 + 所有权变动规则　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国物权变动规则吸收世界上两大主要物权变动模式,创造性地兼采债权形式主义与登记对抗主义,而我国《物权法》24条关于特殊动产物权变动在此混合模式下采登记对抗主义的规定却过于笼统粗糙,这引发了民法学界及实务界极大的争议与适用难度。特别是2012年最高人民法院《买卖合同司法解释》的出台,更是使关于特殊动产物权变动模式的争论又掀起了新高潮。要厘清特殊动产一物数卖下标的物所有权究竟由谁取得,必然应当厘清其物权变动规则的构成要件。由于特殊动产采公示对抗主义,其物权变动在理论模式上应涉及到形成力及对抗力的双重效力。故除引言外,正文共分以下三部分对特殊动产一物数卖的所有权变动规则进行探讨。第一部分:特殊动产一物数卖下形成力分析。现阶段学者主要提出合同生效说、狭义交付生效说、登记补充生效说以及善意登记优先说等理论,从我国民法理论体系的自洽性及理论逻辑延展性出发,《物权法》24条并未从正面对特殊动产物权变动的生效要件作出规定,应当认为是对23条“交付生效”的沿用,而仅办理登记而未受领交付的买受人也不应认定其享有标的物所有权,故特殊动产物权变动形成力构成上应坚持狭义交付生效说,即交付生效,登记不具有生效效力。值得注意的是,观念交付方式也同样应当适用于特殊动产登记对抗下的所有权变动。第二部分:特殊动产一物数卖下对抗力分析。现阶段理论研究尚不够深入全面,以往学者们主要集中精力探讨与形成力问题一本同源的“不得对抗”背后的法理,当然近几年也陆续有学者扩展研究面,开始探讨公示对抗的范围问题。结合现有研究成果及理论创新,本文将从对抗力法理基础、对抗范围的主客观标准以及善意对抗制度与善意取得制度关系几方面入手展开论述。“未经登记,不得对抗善意第三人”应根源于对第三人合理信赖登记公信力的保护,而这种可对抗标的物所有权人的第三人应限制为已完成交付、登记双重公示的主观善意第三人。另外,登记对抗制度与善意取得制度虽然高度相似,但两者间在适用范围及部分构成要件上仍存在差异,故两制度是彼此独立的,不宜混用。第三部分:对《买卖合同司法解释》第10条的评析与完善建议。根据以上特殊动产所有权变动构成要件检阅《买卖合同司法解释》第10条所确立的各项规则,建议摒弃“登记优先标准”“合同成立在先标准”,理顺无权处分下合同效力问题,同时对于“交付优先标准”也不宜绝对适用。
[Abstract]:The rules of real right change in our country absorb the two major real right change modes in the world, and creatively adopt both creditor's right formalism and registration antagonism.However, the 24 articles of the property Law of our country about the change of special movable property right adopting registration antagonism under this mixed mode are too general and rough, which leads to great controversy and difficulty of application in the field of civil law and practice.Especially, the appearance of the Supreme people's Court's Judicial interpretation of the contract of purchase and sale in 2012 has brought a new climax to the debate on the mode of changing the real right of special movable property.In order to clarify the ownership of the subject matter of the sale of a special movable property, it is necessary to clarify the constituent elements of the rules of change of real right.Because the special movable property adopts the public demonstration antagonism, its real right change should involve the dual effect of forming force and adversarial force in the theoretical mode.In addition to the introduction, the text is divided into the following three parts to discuss the rules of ownership change.The first part: the analysis of the forming force of the special movable property.At this stage, scholars mainly put forward theories such as the theory of contract effectiveness, the theory of narrow delivery and effectiveness, the theory of registration supplement, and the theory of good faith registration priority.Proceeding from the self-consistency and the theoretical logic extension of the theoretical system of civil law in China, the article 24 of the Real Law does not provide for the effective elements of the change of the real right of special movable property from the front, and should be regarded as the continuation of 23 articles of "delivery and effectiveness".The buyer who only handles the registration but does not receive the delivery should not assume that the buyer has the ownership of the subject matter, so the formation of the real right change of the special movable property should insist on the narrow sense delivery effective theory, that is, the delivery takes effect, and the registration does not have the effective effect.It is worth noting that conceptual delivery should also apply to changes in ownership under registration of special movable property.The second part: the analysis of the adversarial force of the special movable property.At the present stage, the theoretical research is not deep enough. In the past, scholars mainly focused on discussing the legal principles behind the problem of formative power, a homologous "no confrontation." of course, in recent years, some scholars have also expanded their research fields.Began to explore the scope of public confrontation.Combined with the existing research results and theoretical innovation, this paper will discuss the legal basis of confrontation force, the subjective and objective criteria of the scope of confrontation, and the relationship between the system of well-intentioned confrontation and the system of bona fide acquisition."unregistered, not against bona fide third parties" shall be rooted in the protection of the third person's reasonable trust in the credibility of the registration, and such third party who may be the owner of the subject-matter shall be restricted to the completion of delivery,A third person of subjective good will who registers double publicity.In addition, although the system of registration confrontation is highly similar to the system of acquisition in good faith, there are still differences in the scope of application and part of the constituent elements between the two systems, so the two systems are independent of each other and should not be used in a mixed way.Part three: comments and suggestions on Article 10 of the Judicial interpretation of Sale and purchase contract.On the basis of reviewing the rules established in Article 10 of the Judicial interpretation of the contract of Sale and purchase, it is suggested that the "priority criteria for Registration" and "the Standard before the formation of the contract" should be abandoned.At the same time, it should not be absolutely applicable to the priority standard of delivery.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.2

【相似文献】