發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-03 03:41

  本文選題：法定權(quán)利 + 附屬權(quán)利　； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)《民法通則》第83條和《物權(quán)法》第87條都對(duì)相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)進(jìn)行了規(guī)定，但是，《民法通則》第83條和《物權(quán)法》第87條的規(guī)定過(guò)于抽象，法律條文設(shè)計(jì)籠統(tǒng)，很難為實(shí)踐中解決相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)糾紛案件提供明確的指導(dǎo)。樣本案例的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)是相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)能否成為買賣合同的標(biāo)的及相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)能否繼續(xù)履行。首先明確相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)的性質(zhì)是所有權(quán)內(nèi)容的限制或延伸，而不是一種獨(dú)立的物權(quán)。這一性質(zhì)決定了相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)不僅具有所有權(quán)的支配性的性質(zhì)，而且具有附屬于所有權(quán)而存在的附屬性。 至于相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)能否成為買賣合同的客體，要從兩方面來(lái)討論。一方面，相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)是法定權(quán)利，其設(shè)定與否不能通過(guò)合同進(jìn)行約定。相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)是附屬權(quán)利，不能脫離作為獨(dú)立權(quán)利的所有權(quán)而單獨(dú)進(jìn)入交易市場(chǎng)。另一方面，建立在相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)基礎(chǔ)之上的相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)的具體內(nèi)容能否約定，學(xué)術(shù)界存在很大爭(zhēng)議，，存在“物權(quán)調(diào)整性規(guī)范說(shuō)”和“行為禁制性規(guī)范說(shuō)”。關(guān)于相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)的規(guī)范屬于物權(quán)調(diào)整性規(guī)范，因此建立在相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)設(shè)定基礎(chǔ)之上的對(duì)相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)具體內(nèi)容的約定是有效的。 相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)的有無(wú)是隨不動(dòng)產(chǎn)周圍客觀情況的變化而不斷變化的。針對(duì)如何判斷相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)能否繼續(xù)履行，討論相鄰?fù)ㄐ袡?quán)構(gòu)成的要件及“必要”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。結(jié)合我國(guó)法律規(guī)定和審判實(shí)踐來(lái)看，我國(guó)目前以唯一通道原則為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:Article 83 of the General principles of Civil Law of China and Article 87 of the Law of Real Rights provide for the right of adjacent communication. However, the provisions of Article 83 of the General principles of Civil Law and Article 87 of the Law of Real Rights are too abstract, and the legal provisions are designed in general terms. It is difficult to provide clear guidance for the settlement of adjacent traffic disputes in practice. The controversial focus of the sample case is whether the adjacent traffic right can be the object of the contract of sale and purchase and whether the adjacent traffic right can continue to be fulfilled. Firstly, it is clear that the nature of adjacent right of passage is the restriction or extension of the content of ownership, rather than an independent real right. This property determines that the adjacent traffic right has not only the dominant property of ownership, but also the subsidiary property attached to ownership. As for whether the adjacent right of communication can become the object of the contract of sale and purchase, it should be discussed from two aspects. On the one hand, the adjacent right of passage is a legal right, its establishment or not can not be agreed through the contract. The adjacent right of passage is a subsidiary right and cannot be entered into the trading market independently from the ownership as an independent right. On the other hand, whether the concrete content of the adjacent right of passage based on the adjacent traffic right can be agreed, there is a lot of controversy in academic circles, and there are "the regulation of real right" and "the norm of behavior prohibition". The norm of the adjacent right of passage belongs to the regulative norm of real right, so the agreement on the concrete content of the adjacent traffic right based on the establishment of the adjacent traffic right is effective. The existence or not of the adjacent right of passage is constantly changing with the change of the objective conditions around the real estate. In view of how to judge whether the adjacent traffic right can continue to be fulfilled, this paper discusses the elements of the contiguous traffic right and the criterion of "necessity". According to our law and trial practice, our country is based on the principle of unique channel.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5;D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 戴謀富;嚴(yán)誠(chéng);;論物權(quán)的正當(dāng)性與物權(quán)法定原則[J];長(zhǎng)沙理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年01期

2 李仁玉;吳萬(wàn)軍;;地役權(quán)與相鄰關(guān)系[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年04期

3 曾大鵬;;論相鄰關(guān)系的定義與本質(zhì)[J];南京大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2012年01期

4 彭誠(chéng)信;現(xiàn)代意義相鄰權(quán)的理解[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;1999年01期

本文編號(hào)：1836850