本文選題：以手護手　切入點：有權(quán)支配　出處：《中國政法大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：國內(nèi)學者論及善意取得制度的來源,多會提及日耳曼法上的“以手護手”原則,認為這是善意取得制度的原型。但是對于“以手護手”的真實情況又語焉不詳,有鑒于此,本文對日耳曼法中的“以手護手”進行了考察。 本文以日耳曼法中對動產(chǎn)追及的限制——“以手護手”原則為主要論述對象,兼及動產(chǎn)追及的客體“動產(chǎn)有權(quán)支配”。本文對有權(quán)支配及“以手護手”的學說史進行了較為細致的考查,試圖理清“以手護手”的來龍去脈。除引言和結(jié)論,本文分為三部分： 第一部分重點介紹日耳曼法中動產(chǎn)追及的對象“有權(quán)支配(Gewere)"。日耳曼物權(quán)法的基本制度設計與羅馬法存在很大區(qū)別,與羅馬法以所有權(quán)與占有二分為基礎建立的物權(quán)制度不同,日耳曼法以混合了占有與所有權(quán)特點的有權(quán)支配為物權(quán)制度的基礎。由于日耳曼法中不存在抽象的“所有權(quán)”概念,有權(quán)支配作為所有權(quán)的“外衣”而成為動產(chǎn)追及的對象。理解日耳曼法中的有支配制度是理解“以手護手”的基礎。中文著述提及有權(quán)支配時,對其性質(zhì)的認識多有含混不清之處,再加上有權(quán)支配在日耳曼法的動產(chǎn)追及制度中處于核心地位,因此,本文第一部分著重介紹了有關(guān)有權(quán)支配的基礎知識。對于有權(quán)支配的詞源,學界有“保護說”與“穿衣說”之爭,吉爾克所倡導的“穿衣說”直到今日仍為通說。有權(quán)支配具有權(quán)利與事實的雙重屬性,因此無論譯為“占有”,還是“支配權(quán)”都有失允當,本文將Gewere譯為“有權(quán)支配”。日耳曼法中的有權(quán)支配與羅馬法和現(xiàn)代民法中的占有均有較大區(qū)別,不可混為一談。 第二部分主要是梳理“以手護手”的學說史。因現(xiàn)存的歷史文獻并沒有關(guān)于“以手護手”之所以成立的理論解釋,在十九和二十世紀日耳曼法學家對進行了大量的研究,提出過各種理論來對“以手護手”進行闡釋。阿爾布萊希特最早提出的“法律上的有權(quán)支配”理論因有嚴重缺陷很快就被否定了。胡貝爾和吉爾克主張的“公示理論”,度成為非常有影響力的學說。但是,公示理論的核心論點卻有重要缺陷。公示理論認為,對動產(chǎn)的實際支配具有某種“賦權(quán)力”,使得受托人有權(quán)處分委托物而致使委托人不得對委托物進行追及。但是,公示理論卻不能說明為什么對脫手物的實際支配卻沒有“賦權(quán)力”。加之該理論夾雜了現(xiàn)代的交易保護思想,與當時的情形并不相符。為對抗公示理論舒爾策提出了“權(quán)利安寧破壞理論”,以解釋為何可對非基于所有權(quán)人意志的脫手物進行追及,從而在另一個角度闡釋說明“以手護手”。該理論雖能較有說服力地說明對脫手物進行追及的原因,但是卻在解釋所有權(quán)人的訴權(quán)方面陷入了混亂。較新的研究多是從所有權(quán)人的訴權(quán)入手來對這個問題進行解釋,認為在所有權(quán)人自愿將動產(chǎn)委托給他人的情況下,無論基于合同還是侵權(quán),所有權(quán)人對第三人均不享有訴權(quán)。在盜竊或搶劫的情況下,所有權(quán)人對第三人享有訴權(quán)的原因在于“犯罪” 第三部分簡要介紹了有關(guān)善意取得起源的兩種學說：羅馬法起源說和日耳曼法起源說。直到今天,這兩種學說都尚未完全將對方駁倒。從善意取得與“以手護手”的相似程度來看,這兩種制度未必存在必然的聯(lián)系�，F(xiàn)代善意取得很可能綜合了羅馬法的時效取得與日耳曼法的“以手護手”兩種制度。
[Abstract]:The domestic scholars and the system of bona fide acquisition source, will mention the Germanic law principle of "hand in hand", think this is a bona fide acquisition prototype. But for the "hand in hand" the real situation and vague, in view of this, this paper in the Germanic law of "hand in hand" were investigated.
In this paper, the Germanic law to the chattel chase and restrictions -- "hand in hand" principle as the main object, and moving object "production recovery and property rights to control." the right to dispose of and the "hand in hand" theory of history for a more detailed examination, trying to sort out "hand hand" the sequence of events. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into three parts:
The first part focuses on the object of "real estate recovery and the Germanic law has the right to control (Gewere)". The basic system design of property law and Germanic law of Rome and Rome, there is a big difference, the ownership and possession of two points as the basis for the establishment of property right system is different, the Germanic law with mixed possession and ownership characteristics are right is based on the property rights system. Because of the abstract concept of ownership does not exist in the Germanic law, have the right to dominate as the title "jacket" and become the real estate object recovery and understanding. In Germanic law system is the dominant understanding of "basic hand hand". Chinese works mentioned has the right to control and the understanding of the nature of more ambiguous place plus the right to dispose of, at the core of the real estate in the Germanic law system in the chase and therefore, the first part mainly introduces the relevant rights to control the Basic knowledge for the right to dispose of the etymology, scholars have "protection" and "dress" of the dispute, Gil advocated "dressed" grams until today is still on. Has the power to govern with dual attributes of rights and the fact that it is translated as "possession", or "right of control" have lost the rightness of the Gewere translated as "right of domination". In Germanic law have the right to dominate and Rome law and modern civil law has had great difference, can not be confused.
The second part mainly combs the "hand in hand" theory of history. Because of the existing historical documents and not on interpretation of "hand in hand" the reason for the establishment of the theory, in nineteen and twentieth Century on German jurists made a lot of research and put forward various theories of "interpretation of hand in hand". Albrecht put forward the "law on the rights to control theory due to serious defects was soon rejected. Hubel and Gierke advocated a" publicity theory ", become very influential theory. However, the core of the theory is the important point of publicity publicity defects. Theory, on real estate has some actual control" Fu power ", the trustee has the right to dispose of property in the client not to trust and to recover. However, publicity theory cannot explain why to sell money No "Fu power". In addition to the theory with modern ideas and the protection of trade, is not consistent with the situation at the time. Put forward the "right to a breach of the peace theory" against publicity theory to explain why the Schultz, based on non dispose of ownership will chase and thus, in the interpretation of another angle "hand in hand". The theory is more convincing explanation for why chase and to sell things, but in the interpretation of the owner's right hand into chaos. A new study is to start from the right of the owner to explain this question, think in the owner voluntarily property entrusted to others, whether based on contract or tort, the owner of third per capita does not enjoy the right to appeal. In case of theft or robbery, the owner of the enjoyment of the right reason is that "made of third people Sin"
The third part briefly introduces two theories about the origin of bona fide acquisition: Rome law and the Germanic law origin origin. Until today, the two theories are not completely refuted. The other from bona fide acquisition and "similarity hand hand" point of view, these two systems may not have inevitable connection. Bona fide acquisition probably the limitation of the laws of Rome made comprehensive and Germanic law of "hand in hand" two systems.

【學位授予單位】：中國政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D904.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 易繼明;論日耳曼財產(chǎn)法的團體主義特征[J];比較法研究;2001年03期

，

本文編號：1637699