本文選題：所有權保留　切入點：善意第三人　出處：《安徽大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：所有權保留制度是一種能夠克服傳統(tǒng)擔保制度的缺陷而興起的非典型的擔保制度,買受人無須自力提供擔保卻能占有并使用標的物,出賣人也能通過保留標的物的所有權來保障其債權,從而實現(xiàn)財產(chǎn)所有與財產(chǎn)利用的有效結合,實現(xiàn)社會資源的有效配置,它不僅在微觀上能起到保障債權實現(xiàn)的擔保目的,同時在宏觀上有著促進社會經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的功用。我國《合同法》第134條將所有權保留制度合法化,明確規(guī)定了買賣雙方當事人之問的權利義務。然而,對于處理所有權保留買賣中買賣雙方當事人與第三人的關系現(xiàn)行立法中沒有明確的規(guī)定,影響了所有權保留制度在司法實踐中的運用。 出賣人在設定所有權保留買賣之前,在標的物上設定擔保的,應當優(yōu)先保護擔保權人的利益。這在學界已經(jīng)達成共識,也是與我國的法律精神相一致的。出賣人在設定所有權保留買賣之后,由于出賣人對標的物享有所有權,且設定的所有權保留條款僅具內部效力,故應當允許出賣人在標的物上設定抵押的,并優(yōu)先保護善意抵押權人的利益。 買受人依照所有權保留條款依法占有標的物,第三人完全有理由相信買受人對標的物享有所有權而同意出賣人在標的物上設定擔保。此時應當優(yōu)先保護善意第三擔保物權人的利益,這是由物權的優(yōu)先性和追及力所決定的,并且我國《物權法》也為第三擔保物權人的利益提供了保障。 出賣人在設定所有權保留買賣前,將標的物轉讓于第三人尚未交付的,應當優(yōu)先保護保留買主的利益,這是與我國處理“一物二買”的精神相一致的。出賣人在設定所有權保留買賣后,由于其對標的物保留了所有權,出賣人仍然有權對標的物進行處分。在這種情況下,如果標的物已經(jīng)實際為出賣人占有,或者標的物的所有權已經(jīng)移轉至第三買受人,或者在標的物之上負擔的“期待權”已經(jīng)解除時,第三買受人可以依法獲得標的物的所有權；而在標的物已經(jīng)為保留買家實際占有并償付完剩余買價債權時，標的物的所有權歸屬于保留買受人。 期待權是一項獨立的具有經(jīng)濟價值的權利,應當認可保留買主對該項權利轉讓的效力。至于保留買主對所有權保留之物的所有權做出無權轉讓的行為,則可以依照善意取得的相關規(guī)定予以處理。 保留買主的債權人對標的物申請強制執(zhí)行時,出賣人可以已經(jīng)依據(jù)其享有的所有權對標的物強制執(zhí)行申請異議并終止執(zhí)行；而出賣人的債權人對標的物申請強制執(zhí)行時,由于我國法律并沒有期待權人異議中請權,此時應當優(yōu)先保護出賣人的債權人的利益。
[Abstract]:Retention of title is an atypical security system that has emerged to overcome the shortcomings of traditional security systems, where the buyer is able to possess and use the subject matter without having to provide security on his own.The seller can also protect the creditor's rights by retaining the ownership of the subject matter, thus realizing the effective combination of property ownership and property utilization, and realizing the effective allocation of social resources, which can not only guarantee the realization of the creditor's rights, but also guarantee the realization of the creditor's rights.At the same time, it has the function of promoting social and economic development on the macro level.Article 134 of contract Law legalizes the retention of title system and clearly stipulates the rights and obligations of both parties.However, there is no clear provision in the current legislation dealing with the relationship between the buyer and the seller and the third party, which affects the application of the retention of title system in the judicial practice.Where a seller creates security on the subject matter before creating a retention-of-title transaction, priority shall be given to protecting the interests of the security right holder.This has reached a consensus in academic circles, and is in line with the spirit of our law.Where the seller, after establishing a retention-of-title transaction, should allow the seller to create a mortgage on the subject-matter because the seller has ownership of the subject matter and the created retention of ownership clause has only internal effect,Priority is given to protecting the interests of bona fide mortgagees.The seller still has the right to dispose of the subject matter because of the reservation of ownership.In such a case, if the subject matter has actually been in the possession of the seller, or the title of the subject matter has been transferred to the third buyer, or the "right of expectation" on the subject matter has been discharged,The third buyer can acquire the title of the subject matter according to law, and the title of the subject matter belongs to the retained buyer when the subject matter has been actually possessed by the buyer and the residual purchase price claim is paid.The right of expectation is an independent right of economic value and shall recognize the validity of the reservation of the transfer of the right by the buyer.As for the right of the retention-of-title buyer to transfer the title of the retention-of-title thing, it may be dealt with in accordance with the relevant provisions of bona fide acquisition.When the creditor who retains the buyer applies for enforcement of the subject-matter, the seller may have objected to and terminated the application for enforcement of the subject-matter on the basis of the ownership enjoyed by the seller; and when the creditor of the seller applies for enforcement of the subject-matter,Because the law of our country does not expect the right to claim in the dissent of the right holder, priority should be given to protecting the interests of the creditor of the seller.
【學位授予單位】：安徽大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前7條

1 茆榮華,孫少君;所有權保留糾紛審判實務研究[J];法學;2005年01期

2 余能斌,侯向磊;保留所有權買賣比較研究[J];法學研究;2000年05期

3 高建新,張德龍,樊建兵;本案出賣人保留的所有權應歸于消滅[J];人民司法;1999年10期

4 方龍華,丁良喜;汽車所有權保留買賣中的幾個法律問題[J];人民司法;1998年10期

5 王相東;論所有權保留買賣制度中的利益平衡[J];汕頭大學學報;2004年06期

6 張洪江;劉澤玉;;所有權保留制度中買賣雙方權利及法律保護[J];山東審判(山東法官培訓學院學報);2006年03期

7 宗學軍;我國所有權保留買賣制度的理論與實踐[J];新疆社會科學;2005年02期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 申衛(wèi)星;期待權理論研究[D];中國政法大學;2001年

2 翟云嶺;分期付款買賣中的買受人利益保護研究[D];對外經(jīng)濟貿易大學;2006年

，

本文編號：1727250