信托财产所有权归属研究

发布时间：2018-05-24 00:47

本文选题：双重所有权 + 信托财产　；参考：《西南政法大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 信托制度作为英美法系最富创造性的制度，具有高度的弹性，在社会、经济、文化、科技等多方面的发展中扮演着极其重要的角色。上世纪以来，大陆法系国家逐渐开始重视这一制度，不断地将其引入本国法律体系中。我国《中华人民共和国信托法》也于2001年10月1日正式生效施行，在起草、制定以及实施过程中许多学者对信托财产所有权的归属一直存在着较大的分歧。在英美法系中由于普通法与衡平法并流体制的存在，信托财产所有权的归属及其独特的“双重所有权”结构可以得到完满的解释。但是在大陆法系国家中则不同，由于传统单一、绝对所有权理论的存在，如何在固有体系下确定信托财产的“双重所有权”性质，确定信托财产的所有权归属就成了学者们面临的首要难题。为此德、日、韩以及台湾等大陆法系国家及地区在引入信托制度的过程中都根据传统民法理论对信托制度进行了改造。然而笔者发现不管如何努力，他们的处理方式不是破坏了传统所有权理论体系造成了民法体系的混乱，就是不能最大限度地达到英美信托制度权、益分离的效果。本文通过对英美法系的信托制度的探析，在比较分析了大陆法系各国的信托财产所有权立法模式式后，指出在大陆法的现有财产法体系理论中解释信托财产所有权是不可能的，并进一步提出只有把信托纳入民事主体制度之中，在立法中承认信托的民事主体地位才能完满地解决信托财产所有权归属的观点。文章第一部分首先对英美法系财产所有权的立法构造进行了分析，指出在英美法中所有权是一个具体的、没有固定涵义的概念，具有可分割的特性。在此基础上着重介绍了信托制度的灵魂——“双重所有权”，既对信托的“普通法上的所有权”以及“衡平法上的所有权”做了充分的分析。该部分主要是为了全面的介绍英美信托制度，以期对英美法信托财产所有权给予一个全面的分析，为全文论证奠定一个基础。第二部分比较分析了信托制度在被引入大陆法系后各国的信托财产所有权立法模式，分别对“受托人享有信托财产所有权说”、“受益人享有信托财产所有权说”、“委托人享有信托财产所有权说”以及“法主体说”进行了介绍及评析，，指出前三者都不适合大陆法系传统的所有权体系，而“法主体说”由于跳出了财产法思考局限为我们解决信托财产所有权的归属提供了一个新的视角，值得我们认真研究。该部分重点介绍了我国的立法模式，指出我国信托立法虽然没有对信托财产所有权的归属作出明确规定，但从具体的法律条文中可以看出立法者实际上是将信托财产所有权赋予了委托人。我国信托法的这种处理模式意图达到淡化财产所有权转移这一法律后果，使大众更容易接受，但是由于用词含糊、法律前后矛盾，相反更容易造成理解上的混淆，因而这种立法模式的不科学性和不合理性也是显而易见的。笔者在这部分的最后总结性地指出了信托财产所有权在大陆法系中遭遇障碍得不到完满解释的原因就在于大陆法系不可动摇的“一物一权”原则的限制。第三部分是本文的重点，也是笔者主要观点的体现。笔者在这一部分指出既然我们用大陆法系的所有权观念不可能对英美法系的“双重所有权”作出圆满的解释，而且也很难放弃传统的物权法体系而全盘引进英美财产法，那么最好的解决办法就是借鉴魁北克的立法模式，从民事主体制度入手以解决这一难题。而这一立法模式的最大障碍在于传统民法理论对民事主体判断标准的误解，笔者在文章中指出权利能力、行为能力虽与法律主体资格紧密相连但其并不是构成民事主体资格的必备要件；衡量一个事物是否能成为民事主体应以其是否具有独立意志、是否拥有自己的独立财产以及法律是否承认来进行判断；并进一步指出信托由于具有独立的意志、独立的财产而完全符合这种判断标准。为了进一步支持这一观点，笔者还分析了这一立法模式的合理性，并提出一些立法建议以及如何健全完善我国信托制度的一些看法。综上，笔者认为：信托财产所有权作为民商法中一种特殊的财产权利，是英美法特有的财产权体系中很独特的一个制度，是在特有的背景以及法源下产生的。在大陆法系中，将信托财产的所有权归属于委托人、受托人或受益人，以期在建立本国信托制度时能结合传统的所有权理论，其实是徒劳的。由于大陆法不可拆分的所有权理论的存在，要达到完满解释信托“所有权与收益分离”的本质，只有通过确认信托的民事主体地位，才能达到既不破坏原有所有权理论又能符合英美信托制度本质的最佳效果。
[Abstract]:As the most creative system in Anglo American law system, trust system is highly flexible and plays an extremely important role in the development of society, economy, culture and science and technology. Since the last century, the civil law countries have gradually begun to attach importance to this system and continue to introduce them into the national legal system. China, "People's Republic of China" Trust law is also formally implemented in October 1, 2001. Many scholars have been disagreed on the ownership of trust property in the process of drafting, making and implementing. In Anglo American law system, the ownership of the ownership of trust property and its unique "double ownership" due to the existence of common law and equity and the existence of fluid system. The structure can be fully explained. However, in the civil law countries, because of the traditional single, the existence of the absolute ownership theory, how to determine the "double ownership" property of the trust property under the inherent system and determine the ownership of the trust property has become the primary difficult problem for the scholars. In the process of introducing the trust system, the countries and regions of the continental law system of the Gulf and other continental law systems have reformed the trust system according to the traditional civil law theory. However, the author finds that no matter how hard it is, their way of handling does not destroy the system of the traditional ownership theory and cause the confusion of the civil law system, and it can not reach the British and American letters to the maximum extent. The effect of the institutional right and the benefit separation.
After the analysis of the trust system in the common law system, this paper compares and analyses the legislative pattern of the ownership of the trust property in the countries of the continental law system, and points out that it is impossible to explain the ownership of the trust property in the existing property law system theory of the continental law, and further proposes that the trust should be incorporated into the system of the civil subject and the legislation is in the legislation. In recognition of the civil status of trust, we can resolve the ownership of trust property satisfactorily.
The first part of the article first analyzes the legislative structure of property ownership in Anglo American law system, and points out that ownership in the Anglo American law is a specific, without the concept of fixed meaning, and has a separable characteristic. On this basis, it introduces the soul of the trust system, "double ownership", which is both "common law" to the trust. The ownership "and" equity ownership "are fully analyzed. This part is mainly to introduce the Anglo American trust system in an all-round way, in order to give a comprehensive analysis of the property rights of the Anglo American law trust property, and lay a foundation for the full text argument. The second part compares and analyzes the trust system after being introduced into the continental law system. The legislative model of the ownership of the trust property of the country, respectively, "the trustee enjoys the ownership of the trust property", "the beneficiary enjoys the theory of the trust property ownership", "the trustee enjoy the trust property ownership theory" and "the law subject", and points out that the former three are not suitable for the traditional ownership system of the continental law system, The theory of "law subject" has provided a new angle of view for us to solve the ownership of trust property by jumping out of the property law. It is worth our careful study. This part focuses on the legislative model of our country, and points out that although the trust legislation in our country does not make a definite provision on the ownership of the trust property ownership, it is from the point of view. In the legal provisions of the body, it can be seen that the legislator actually gives the trustee property ownership to the client. This treatment mode of our country's trust law aims to achieve the legal consequences of desalination of property ownership transfer and make the masses more easily accepted, but because of vague words and contradictions in the law, it is easier to cause confusion in understanding. Therefore, the inscientificity and irrationality of this legislative model is also obvious. In the last part of this part, the author points out that the reason why the trust property ownership is not fully explained in the continental law system is the limitation of the unshakable principle of "one thing and one right" in the continental law system. The third part is the article. In this part, the author points out that since we can not make a successful interpretation of the "double ownership" of the Anglo American legal system with the concept of ownership in the continental law system, and it is difficult to give up the traditional property law system and introduce the British and American property law completely, the best solution is to borrow it. The legislative mode of Quebec is to solve this problem from the civil subject system. The biggest obstacle to this legislative model lies in the misunderstanding of the standard of judgment of the civil subject in the traditional civil law theory. The author points out the right ability, the behavior ability is closely connected with the qualification of the legal subject, but it is not a civil subject qualification. It is necessary to judge whether a thing can be a civil subject whether it has independent will, whether it owns its own independent property, and whether the law recognizes it, and further points out that the trust is fully conformed to this criterion because of its independent will and independent property. In order to further support this On the one hand, the author also analyzes the rationality of this legislative mode, and puts forward some legislative proposals and some views on how to improve and perfect our trust system.
As a special property right in the civil and commercial law, the author thinks that the ownership of the trust property is a unique system in the property rights system peculiar to the Anglo American law, which is produced under the special background and the source of the law. In the continental law system, the ownership of the trust property belongs to the principal, the trustee or the beneficiary, in order to build the property right in the continental law system. It is in vain to combine the traditional ownership theory when establishing the national trust system. Because of the existence of the theory of ownership of the mainland law, the essence of the "separation of ownership and income" should be fully explained. Only by confirming the status of the civil subject of the trust, can we achieve no damage to the original ownership theory. The best effect of the nature of the British and American trust system.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D922.282

【引证文献】