论占有之性质

发布时间：2018-08-05 09:38

【摘要】：随着现代社会经济的发展,物资财富的极大丰富,财产的流转利用关系越来越受到关注。占有,不仅是一种物对人的“归属性”关系,也是一种人与物的“利用性”关系。不论占有是作为整个法律权利体系,特别是物权体系的基础和前提,还是作为其必要的补充,占有制度的完善对于我国法律体系的完善有着重要的意义这一点毋庸讳言。但是我国《物权法》关于占有制度的规定却显得十分单薄、简陋,在占有的基本概念、构成,占有的相关推定、保护规则等方面都存在缺陷,本文认为这与包括占有性质在内的占有基础问题的研究未能形成一致意见不无关系。关于占有的性质,占有事实说和占有权利说两种主要的学说观点争锋相对,争论不休。除此之外,理论界还有权能说、法律关系说、法益说等不同的学说观点。以上学说各有其支持理由,要在其中选出最为恰当的合乎实际的理论观点殊为不易。为了对占有性质进行研究,首先需要对研究过程中可能涉及到的相关要素,包括占有的构成、概念、权利等进行厘定,而这些要素中也包含了占有性质的相关线索。通过该部分的分析,可以发现占有的观念化对占有性质学说争议所造成的巨大影响,占有因观念化而十分类似于权利。但是经过分析,可以发现占有的观念化与权利的观念化之间存在明显的区别,其观念化依然表现出强烈的事实色彩。而占有可以通过不法行为取得也强烈暗示着占有的事实属性。本部分的研究为后续占有性质分析的平台和基础。第二部分对占有的历史发展脉络进行了梳理,分别涉及了罗马法和日耳曼法这两大现代占有制度的源头,试图通过对历史的研究整理出各个理论学说的历史基础,发现占有性质的相关线索。经过分析,将占有视为权利可以被视为多种法律现象被混同以及权利观念不健全的结果。同时需要指出的是,法律的生命在于当下,在于活生生的社会现状,而不在于历史,不在于厚厚的史书之中。因而对于历史的研究仅能是参考性的、启发性的,对于占有性质的认识,最终还是需要回归于占有本身,回归于社会的发展状况和现实需求。第三部分中对占有性质的各个学说进行了辨析,并进一步的对日本“所有权”进行了简单的论述。各个学说之中,事实说、权利说属于更为主流的观点,权利说试图通过占有的历史、占有的保护、占有的形式、占有的规则等方面对占有属于权利加以论证,但是经过分析,上述理由均不能成立,因而占有应当回归占有事实这一最为质朴的理论观点。同时,占有既然不能够成立为权利,则应当属于受法律保护的事实。而该事实既然非为权利而为何受到法律的保护值得研究。经过分析,占有受保护是基于多种原因的结果,而非以定性为权利为必要,从而彻底否定了占有权利说的必要性。第四部分中对我国现行占有制度所存在的缺陷从占有性质角度出发进行了整理,并从占有的价值角度说明了对占有制度进行完善的必要性。此后,对我国未来占有制度的完善从占有的性质、构成,占有的推定规则,占有的保护以及否定间接占有、准占有等角度提出了一些粗浅的建议,以期抛砖引玉。最终与第五部分对全文进行了总结。总体而言,经过分析,占有事实说是更为可取的理论观点,在我国未来的立法完善中,应当坚持占有事实说的观点,在坚持占有属于事实的同时,明确宣告对占有加以完善的保护。以此,保持占有制度乃至整个法律体系的适恰。否则,占有制度将陷于混乱,对于占有之保护也并无特别的助益。
[Abstract]:With the development of modern social economy and the richness of material wealth, the relationship between the circulation and utilization of property is becoming more and more concerned. Possession is not only a "attribute to attribute" relationship of a kind of thing, but also a "utilization" relationship between people and things. No matter possession is the basis and premise of the whole legal system, especially the real right system, As a necessary supplement, the perfection of the possession system is of great significance to the perfection of the legal system of our country. However, the provisions of the property law on possession system appear very thin, simple, and have defects in the basic concepts, the constitution of the possession, the relevant presumption of possession, and the rules of protection. This article holds that the study of the basic question of possession, including the nature of possession, is not unrelated. The nature of possession, the theory of possession and the right of possession are the two main doctrines of the argument, and the argument is undisputable. In addition, the theorists have different doctrines, such as the right to say, the legal relation, the legal interest, and so on. The above theory has its support, and it is not easy to choose the most appropriate theoretical viewpoint in which it is appropriate. In order to study the nature of possession, it is necessary to define the relevant elements that may be involved in the study, including the composition, concept, and rights of the possessor, and the possessability of these elements. Through the analysis of this part, we can find the great influence caused by the conceptualization of possession to the dispute of the doctrine of possession, and the possession is quite similar to the right. But after analysis, it can be found that the conceptualization of possession and the conceptualization of rights are distinctly different, and their conceptions are still strong. The study of this part is the platform and foundation of the analysis of the following possession. The second part of the history of the historical development of possession is combed, respectively, the source of the two modern possessive systems of Rome law and riemannan law, respectively. Through the study of history, the historical basis of theory and the clues of possession are found. After analysis, possession is regarded as a result of which rights can be regarded as a mixture of legal phenomena and unsound ideas of rights. It is also to be pointed out that the life of the law lies in the present, and the living society is present. It does not lie in history, not in the thick history books. Therefore, the study of history can only be a reference, enlightening, and for the understanding of the nature of possession, in the end, it needs to return to the possession itself and return to the social development and the actual needs. In the third part, the theories of the possessive nature are identified and entered. One step is to briefly discuss the "ownership" of Japan. Among the various doctrines, the facts say that the right theory is a more mainstream view, and the right to argue about the rights of possession through the history of possession, the protection of possession, the form of possession, the rules of possession, and so on. Therefore, it is the most simple theoretical point of view that it should return to possession of the fact. At the same time, the fact that possession is not established as right should belong to the fact that the law is protected. The fact that the fact is not for right and why the protection of the law is worth studying. In the fourth part, the defects of the current possession system in our country are sorted out from the angle of possession, and the necessity of perfecting the possession system is explained from the point of view of the value of possession. After that, the perfection of our country's future possession system is taken up. Some of the nature, the constitution, the presumption of possession, the protection of possession, the negation of the indirect possession, the quasi possession, and so on, put forward some shallow suggestions, so as to give a brief introduction to the full text. Finally, the fifth part of the full text is summed up. In the meantime, we should insist on the view of possession of the fact, and make clear the protection of the perfection of possession while holding the possession of the facts, so as to maintain the proper right of the possession system and the whole legal system. Otherwise, the system of possession will be in chaos, and there is no special benefit for the protection of possession.
【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】：D923.2

【相似文献】