本文選題：特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn) + 所有權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)物權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則吸收世界上兩大主要物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,創(chuàng)造性地兼采債權(quán)形式主義與登記對(duì)抗主義,而我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》24條關(guān)于特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)在此混合模式下采登記對(duì)抗主義的規(guī)定卻過于籠統(tǒng)粗糙,這引發(fā)了民法學(xué)界及實(shí)務(wù)界極大的爭(zhēng)議與適用難度。特別是2012年最高人民法院《買賣合同司法解釋》的出臺(tái),更是使關(guān)于特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式的爭(zhēng)論又掀起了新高潮。要厘清特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物數(shù)賣下標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)究竟由誰(shuí)取得,必然應(yīng)當(dāng)厘清其物權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則的構(gòu)成要件。由于特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)采公示對(duì)抗主義,其物權(quán)變動(dòng)在理論模式上應(yīng)涉及到形成力及對(duì)抗力的雙重效力。故除引言外,正文共分以下三部分對(duì)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物數(shù)賣的所有權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則進(jìn)行探討。第一部分:特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物數(shù)賣下形成力分析�，F(xiàn)階段學(xué)者主要提出合同生效說(shuō)、狹義交付生效說(shuō)、登記補(bǔ)充生效說(shuō)以及善意登記優(yōu)先說(shuō)等理論,從我國(guó)民法理論體系的自洽性及理論邏輯延展性出發(fā),《物權(quán)法》24條并未從正面對(duì)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)的生效要件作出規(guī)定,應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)為是對(duì)23條“交付生效”的沿用,而僅辦理登記而未受領(lǐng)交付的買受人也不應(yīng)認(rèn)定其享有標(biāo)的物所有權(quán),故特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)形成力構(gòu)成上應(yīng)堅(jiān)持狹義交付生效說(shuō),即交付生效,登記不具有生效效力。值得注意的是,觀念交付方式也同樣應(yīng)當(dāng)適用于特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)登記對(duì)抗下的所有權(quán)變動(dòng)。第二部分:特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物數(shù)賣下對(duì)抗力分析�，F(xiàn)階段理論研究尚不夠深入全面,以往學(xué)者們主要集中精力探討與形成力問題一本同源的“不得對(duì)抗”背后的法理,當(dāng)然近幾年也陸續(xù)有學(xué)者擴(kuò)展研究面,開始探討公示對(duì)抗的范圍問題。結(jié)合現(xiàn)有研究成果及理論創(chuàng)新,本文將從對(duì)抗力法理基礎(chǔ)、對(duì)抗范圍的主客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及善意對(duì)抗制度與善意取得制度關(guān)系幾方面入手展開論述�！拔唇�(jīng)登記,不得對(duì)抗善意第三人”應(yīng)根源于對(duì)第三人合理信賴登記公信力的保護(hù),而這種可對(duì)抗標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)人的第三人應(yīng)限制為已完成交付、登記雙重公示的主觀善意第三人。另外,登記對(duì)抗制度與善意取得制度雖然高度相似,但兩者間在適用范圍及部分構(gòu)成要件上仍存在差異,故兩制度是彼此獨(dú)立的,不宜混用。第三部分:對(duì)《買賣合同司法解釋》第10條的評(píng)析與完善建議。根據(jù)以上特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)構(gòu)成要件檢閱《買賣合同司法解釋》第10條所確立的各項(xiàng)規(guī)則,建議摒棄“登記優(yōu)先標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”“合同成立在先標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”,理順無(wú)權(quán)處分下合同效力問題,同時(shí)對(duì)于“交付優(yōu)先標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”也不宜絕對(duì)適用。
[Abstract]:The rules of real right change in our country absorb the two major real right change modes in the world, and creatively adopt both creditor's right formalism and registration antagonism.However, the 24 articles of the property Law of our country about the change of special movable property right adopting registration antagonism under this mixed mode are too general and rough, which leads to great controversy and difficulty of application in the field of civil law and practice.Especially, the appearance of the Supreme people's Court's Judicial interpretation of the contract of purchase and sale in 2012 has brought a new climax to the debate on the mode of changing the real right of special movable property.In order to clarify the ownership of the subject matter of the sale of a special movable property, it is necessary to clarify the constituent elements of the rules of change of real right.Because the special movable property adopts the public demonstration antagonism, its real right change should involve the dual effect of forming force and adversarial force in the theoretical mode.In addition to the introduction, the text is divided into the following three parts to discuss the rules of ownership change.The first part: the analysis of the forming force of the special movable property.At this stage, scholars mainly put forward theories such as the theory of contract effectiveness, the theory of narrow delivery and effectiveness, the theory of registration supplement, and the theory of good faith registration priority.Proceeding from the self-consistency and the theoretical logic extension of the theoretical system of civil law in China, the article 24 of the Real Law does not provide for the effective elements of the change of the real right of special movable property from the front, and should be regarded as the continuation of 23 articles of "delivery and effectiveness".The buyer who only handles the registration but does not receive the delivery should not assume that the buyer has the ownership of the subject matter, so the formation of the real right change of the special movable property should insist on the narrow sense delivery effective theory, that is, the delivery takes effect, and the registration does not have the effective effect.It is worth noting that conceptual delivery should also apply to changes in ownership under registration of special movable property.The second part: the analysis of the adversarial force of the special movable property.At the present stage, the theoretical research is not deep enough. In the past, scholars mainly focused on discussing the legal principles behind the problem of formative power, a homologous "no confrontation." of course, in recent years, some scholars have also expanded their research fields.Began to explore the scope of public confrontation.Combined with the existing research results and theoretical innovation, this paper will discuss the legal basis of confrontation force, the subjective and objective criteria of the scope of confrontation, and the relationship between the system of well-intentioned confrontation and the system of bona fide acquisition."unregistered, not against bona fide third parties" shall be rooted in the protection of the third person's reasonable trust in the credibility of the registration, and such third party who may be the owner of the subject-matter shall be restricted to the completion of delivery,A third person of subjective good will who registers double publicity.In addition, although the system of registration confrontation is highly similar to the system of acquisition in good faith, there are still differences in the scope of application and part of the constituent elements between the two systems, so the two systems are independent of each other and should not be used in a mixed way.Part three: comments and suggestions on Article 10 of the Judicial interpretation of Sale and purchase contract.On the basis of reviewing the rules established in Article 10 of the Judicial interpretation of the contract of Sale and purchase, it is suggested that the "priority criteria for Registration" and "the Standard before the formation of the contract" should be abandoned.At the same time, it should not be absolutely applicable to the priority standard of delivery.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 張寧;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付制度初論[J];宿州學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年05期

2 陳衍;;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付相關(guān)問題探析[J];鐵路采購(gòu)與物流;2007年11期

3 屈茂輝;;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付規(guī)則的解釋與適用[J];政法論壇;2008年06期

4 葉梅;乙增武;;動(dòng)產(chǎn)占有與登記的效力沖突及解決[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2010年04期

5 張力;鄭志峰;;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物二賣履行糾紛類型化思考——兼評(píng)《買賣合同司法解釋》第10條[J];河北法學(xué);2014年07期

6 李玉芬;;論《物權(quán)法》實(shí)施對(duì)動(dòng)產(chǎn)強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行之影響[J];長(zhǎng)春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年10期

7 李明誠(chéng);;解讀幾部與農(nóng)機(jī)駕駛員密切相關(guān)的新法律[J];浙江農(nóng)村機(jī)電;2008年03期

8 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前6條

1 北京大成律師事務(wù)所合伙人 師安寧;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付制度中的邊緣性問題[N];人民法院報(bào);2007年

2 重慶市第五中級(jí)人民法院 湯偉 朱敏 蔣曉亮;司法拍定不動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付問題芻議[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

3 刁安心;從《物權(quán)法》看特定動(dòng)產(chǎn)的執(zhí)行[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2008年

4 本報(bào)記者 李勇;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付規(guī)則細(xì)化[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

5 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授 博士生導(dǎo)師 崔建遠(yuǎn);留置權(quán)可以成立于第三人的動(dòng)產(chǎn)上[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

6 沙建平 張學(xué)和;以詐騙所得訂購(gòu)房屋的行為是否有效[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 豐國(guó)忠;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2004年

2 王茜;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付制度研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2004年

3 賈素飛;論不動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付在物權(quán)變動(dòng)中的效力[D];河北經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué);2015年

4 王媚;動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2006年

5 周芳;侵占動(dòng)產(chǎn)行為的民事責(zé)任問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

6 吳香香;動(dòng)產(chǎn)有形交付的法律性質(zhì)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

7 葉建勛;動(dòng)產(chǎn)買賣中交付的公示效力[D];清華大學(xué);2003年

8 宋健;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物數(shù)賣之法理研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

9 張兆萃;動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬[D];大連海事大學(xué);2014年

10 任夢(mèng)荷;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物數(shù)賣的所有權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：1763511