發(fā)布時間：2018-06-07 09:52

  本文選題：特殊動產 + 所有權變動��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：特殊動產又被稱為“準不動產”,我國法律法規(guī)并未對特殊動產做出確切定義,只是采取列舉方式確定了其外延,特殊動產包括機動車、船舶及航空器等�！段餀喾ā贰ⅰ顿I賣合同司法解釋》以及《機動車登記規(guī)定》、《船舶登記條例》等針對特殊動產的行政法規(guī)、規(guī)章均規(guī)定了特殊動產所有權變動采“交付生效+登記對抗”模式,此模式為我國獨創(chuàng),實則大陸法系兩大物權變動模式的混合,而這一混合是特殊動產所有權變動規(guī)則出現(xiàn)諸多問題和矛盾的邏輯起始點。我國現(xiàn)有特殊動產所有權變動模式面臨的邏輯困境主要有三:其一,“登記作用虛無化”,“不經(jīng)登記,不得對抗善意第三人”的規(guī)定只有在特殊動產經(jīng)占有改定方式進行轉移的情形下才具有實際意義,在其他情形下均無實際適用余地;其二,“公信力體系混亂”,目前法律同時適用均具有權利表征作用的兩種不同的公示方式將造成該兩種公示方式之間效力的沖突,在目前特殊動產采“交付生效+登記對抗”的獨特模式下,登記的實質作用微乎其微,一方面不利于第三人信賴利益的保護,另一方面也使得特殊動產所有權的公示體系混亂,導致第三人主觀善意與惡意缺乏判斷的標準,無法建立起有效的特殊動產所有權公示制度;其三,“登記連續(xù)性中斷”,登記的非必要性,加之登記的非強制性,必然會帶來登記的非連續(xù)性,登記的非連續(xù)性反之又會直接影響登記公示效力的發(fā)揮,一旦登記中斷,則必然會出現(xiàn)登記名義人和真實權利人不一致的情形。而產生上述邏輯窘境的原因主要有二:第一,登記的邏輯起點認識錯誤,在權利人與權利外觀人本就實現(xiàn)了一致的前提下,無需另外引進一套權利外觀以證明權屬歸屬,但是在本權與外觀已經(jīng)實現(xiàn)了一致的前提下,法律又引進了一個特殊動產所有權的表征方式——登記,這一過猶不及的規(guī)定使得特殊動產所有權出現(xiàn)兩個權利外觀——占有和登記,反而使得外界對于特殊動產所有權的表征方式產生疑惑;第二,登記的法律效果定位錯誤,登記是國家公權力介入而進行的行為,法定性、程序性等特征決定其應更具準確性、權威性,因此登記的公示效力應該強于占有的公示效力,登記不僅應具有權利推定效力,還應具有權利形成效力。從特殊動產的特殊屬性分析,登記公示方式要優(yōu)于占有公示方式,且從我國法律制度傳統(tǒng)及現(xiàn)有客觀制度背景出發(fā),我國宜采取形式主義,不宜采取意思主義,為了交易安全及效率考慮,宜采登記要件主義模式,在確定特殊動產所有權變動模式的前提下,應該完善相應配套法律制度。
[Abstract]:The special movable property is also called "quasi-immovable property". The laws and regulations of our country do not define the special movable property exactly, but use enumeration method to determine its extension, and the special movable property includes motor vehicle. Administrative regulations on special movable property, such as the Law on property, the Judicial interpretation of the contract of purchase and purchase, the provisions on the Registration of Motor vehicles, and the regulations on ship Registration, etc. The regulations stipulate that the change of ownership of special movable property adopts the mode of "delivery and effective registration antagonism", which is the original creation of our country. In fact, it is the mixture of the two modes of real right change in the civil law system. This mixture is the logical starting point of many problems and contradictions in the rules of change of ownership of special movable property. There are three main logical dilemmas facing the current mode of change of ownership of special movable property in our country: first, "nothingness of registration function", "without registration," The provision that "shall not be against bona fide third parties" is of practical significance only if the special movable property is transferred by the means of possession and determination, and there is no practical room for application in any other case; secondly, the "credibility system is chaotic," At present, the application of two different modes of publicity, both of which have the function of representation of rights, will result in a conflict of effectiveness between the two modes of publicity, under the unique mode of "delivery and effective registration antagonism" in the present special movable property. On the one hand, it is not conducive to the protection of the trust interests of the third party, on the other hand, it also causes confusion of the public display system of the ownership of special movable property, which leads to the third party's subjective goodwill and malice lack the judgment standard. It is impossible to establish an effective system of publicizing the ownership of special movable property. Thirdly, the "continuity of registration", the non-necessity of registration, and the non-mandatory nature of registration will inevitably bring about discontinuity of registration. In turn, the discontinuity of registration will directly affect the effectiveness of public registration. Once registration is interrupted, there will inevitably be a discrepancy between the registered nominal person and the real right holder. There are two main reasons for the above logic dilemma: first, the logic starting point of registration is wrong. Under the premise that the right owner and the right appearance person have realized the same, it is not necessary to introduce a set of rights appearance to prove the ownership of the right. However, on the premise that this right and appearance have been consistent, the law has introduced a special form of representation of the title of movable property-registration. This excessive regulation makes the ownership of special movable property appear two rights appearance-possession and registration, on the contrary, makes the outside world doubt about the expression of the ownership of special movable property. Second, the legal effect of registration is wrong. Registration is an act carried out by the public power of the state. The legal and procedural characteristics decide that the registration should be more accurate and authoritative. Therefore, the effectiveness of public registration should be stronger than that of possession, and registration should not only have the effect of presumption of right. It should also have the effect of forming rights. From the analysis of the special attribute of special movable property, the way of registering public notice should be superior to that of possession, and proceeding from the tradition of our legal system and the background of existing objective system, our country should adopt formalism rather than will doctrine. In order to consider the security and efficiency of transaction, it is appropriate to adopt the registration essentialism mode. On the premise of determining the changing mode of ownership of special movable property, the corresponding supporting legal system should be perfected.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.2

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 劉江琴;論動產所有權合同移轉的行為生效要件[J];濰坊學院學報;2002年03期

2 楊奎臣;李婧;;特殊動產所有權保留約款的效力及公示制度完善[J];前沿;2011年11期

3 張建英;;論動產所有權的善意取得制度[J];四川省政法管理干部學院學報;1999年01期

4 劉江琴,李克舉;動產所有權合同移轉模式的比較法研究[J];荊州師范學院學報;2003年01期

5 И·А·波克羅夫斯基;張建文;付子堂;;論所有權問題[J];法學雜志;2011年11期

6 陳益青;;特殊動產所有權變動的公示方法探析——兼評我國《物權法》第24條[J];江西社會科學;2013年01期

7 雷蕾;分期付款買賣中動產所有權保留制度評析[J];洛陽師范學院學報;2004年05期

8 屈茂輝;關于物權法制定中動產所有權原始取得方法的探討[J];湖南師范大學社會科學學報;1997年03期

9 尹德常;;論裝修物的法律屬性[J];山東審判(山東法官培訓學院學報);2006年03期

10 金英潔;;我國《物權法》設立先占制度的必要性[J];合作經(jīng)濟與科技;2008年12期

相關重要報紙文章 前2條

1 海南省高級人民法院 余德厚 海南省洋浦經(jīng)濟開發(fā)區(qū)人民法院 袁晶 廖長榮;以登記方式管理的 動產所有權的確定[N];人民法院報;2013年

2 河南省孟州市人民法院 趙國勇邋楊海波;執(zhí)行中特定動產所有權之確定[N];人民法院報;2008年

相關碩士學位論文 前4條

1 宋紅暢;特殊動產所有權變動模式研究[D];西南政法大學;2015年

2 張長青;我國特殊動產所有權移轉研究[D];西南政法大學;2013年

3 李百主;特殊動產所有權取得中的交付與登記[D];華東政法大學;2014年

4 張麒麟;動產所有權保留制度探究[D];西南政法大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1990769