房產(chǎn)增值的信賴?yán)尜r償研究
本文選題：信賴?yán)?/strong> 切入點(diǎn)：房產(chǎn)增值 出處：《沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文
【摘要】：房產(chǎn)對(duì)于國(guó)人來(lái)說(shuō)意義非凡，既是生活的根基，也是投資、獲利、保值的重要途徑。自從2005年以來(lái)，經(jīng)濟(jì)快速發(fā)展，房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)日益繁榮，房?jī)r(jià)一路飆升，房屋成倍增值。房產(chǎn)利益關(guān)系每一個(gè)家庭，然而房屋買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中出現(xiàn)的種種問(wèn)題困擾著司法實(shí)務(wù)，也迷惑著普通大眾。其中爭(zhēng)議最大的無(wú)疑是房產(chǎn)增值部分，在買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同無(wú)效時(shí)，房產(chǎn)增值部分如何處理，關(guān)系著各方的切身利益，也影響著社會(huì)的穩(wěn)定大局。學(xué)界和司法界關(guān)于房產(chǎn)增值部分的定性討論頗多，但尚未形成統(tǒng)一看法。文章擬通過(guò)對(duì)學(xué)界主流觀點(diǎn)的比較分析，探索房產(chǎn)增值部分屬于信賴?yán)孢@一觀點(diǎn)的合理性，兼顧對(duì)有過(guò)失的受害方的損失求償權(quán)的限制問(wèn)題展開(kāi)討論，并進(jìn)一步探討賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)法理基礎(chǔ)，分析“過(guò)失相抵”原則的合理性。 文章在撰寫(xiě)過(guò)程中，主要參考了遼寧省高級(jí)人民法院的買(mǎi)受人金彪訴出賣(mài)人綏中第三運(yùn)輸公司買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同糾紛的案例，由此案例總結(jié)出文章的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)，對(duì)房產(chǎn)增值的信賴?yán)鎸傩詥?wèn)題和買(mǎi)受人的賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)的限制問(wèn)題展開(kāi)討論。文章在研究過(guò)程中主要采用了以下幾種研究方法：概念分析法，對(duì)所涉及概念確定其內(nèi)涵和外延，明確其所指；歷史比較法，對(duì)所涉及的制度，追本溯源，不僅明確其發(fā)展歷程和制度產(chǎn)生，而且明確其所以然；文獻(xiàn)研究法,通過(guò)調(diào)查國(guó)內(nèi)外文獻(xiàn)，了解締約過(guò)失制度的歷史及在各國(guó)的發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀，發(fā)掘?qū)ξ覈?guó)的法律規(guī)定和司法實(shí)踐的借鑒意義。 通過(guò)以上分析，文章得出結(jié)論，即房產(chǎn)增值部分的屬性應(yīng)定性為信賴?yán)鎿p失中的間接損失，對(duì)于該部分損失的賠償限度應(yīng)以不超過(guò)履行利益為限。受損害方的過(guò)失不應(yīng)當(dāng)致使其損害求償權(quán)喪失。文章通過(guò)比較分析侵權(quán)行為說(shuō)、法律行為說(shuō)、法律直接規(guī)定說(shuō)、誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則說(shuō)等各種學(xué)說(shuō)的缺陷，確定誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則是信賴?yán)娴姆ɡ砘A(chǔ)。 文章通過(guò)比較過(guò)失相抵原則、減損原則、損益相抵原則，論述信賴?yán)尜r償請(qǐng)求權(quán)是否適用過(guò)錯(cuò)原則，探究能合理認(rèn)定賠償范圍的原則。最后，，針對(duì)目前實(shí)際現(xiàn)狀，從明確賠償范圍、引入“過(guò)失相抵”原則兩方面提出完善建議。
[Abstract]:Real estate means a lot to the people of China. It is not only the foundation of life, but also the important way to invest, profit and preserve value. Since 2005, the economy has grown rapidly, the real estate market has been booming, and house prices have soared. Houses multiply in value. Real estate interests concern every family. However, the problems that arise in housing sales contracts are puzzling the judicial practice as well as the general public. The most controversial of these issues is undoubtedly the property appreciation part. When the contract of sale and purchase is invalid, how to deal with the value-added part of the real estate is related to the vital interests of all parties and also affects the overall situation of social stability. There is a lot of qualitative discussion about the value-added part of the real estate in the academic and judicial circles. However, a unified view has not yet been formed. This paper intends to explore the rationality of the view that the property appreciation part belongs to the interest of trust through the comparative analysis of the mainstream views of the academic circle, and to discuss the limitation of the loss claim of the negligent injured party. And further probe into the legal basis of the right of claim for compensation, and analyze the rationality of the principle of "fault offset". In the course of writing, the article mainly refers to the case of Jin Biao, a buyer of Liaoning Provincial higher people's Court, who sued the seller Suizhong third Transportation Company for the sale and purchase contract dispute. The case summarizes the dispute focus of the article. This paper discusses the property of trust interest and the limitation of buyer's claim for compensation. In the course of the research, this paper mainly adopts the following research methods: the concept analysis method, the definition and extension of the concept involved, The historical comparative law, tracing back to the source of the system involved, not only makes clear the course of its development and the origin of the system, but also the reasons for it; the literature research method, through the investigation of the domestic and foreign literature, To understand the history of the system of fault in contracting and its development in various countries, to explore the legal provisions and judicial practice in China for reference. Based on the above analysis, the paper draws a conclusion that the property of the value-added part of the property should be characterized as the indirect loss in the loss of trust interests. The limit of compensation for this part of the loss should be limited to not exceeding the performing benefit. The fault of the injured party should not result in the loss of its right to compensation for damage. The principle of good faith is the legal basis of trust interest. By comparing the principle of fault offset, the principle of derogation, the principle of profit and loss offset, this paper discusses whether the principle of fault is applicable to the right to claim compensation for trust interests, and probes into the principle that can reasonably determine the scope of compensation. Finally, in view of the actual situation at present, From the clear compensation scope, the introduction of the principle of "fault offset" two aspects to improve the proposal.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.29
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條
1 羅許生,徐長(zhǎng)斌;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任的法理基礎(chǔ)研究[J];重慶職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期
2 錢(qián)玉林;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任與誠(chéng)信原則的適用[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年04期
3 潘冬根;;我國(guó)締約過(guò)失責(zé)任的立法現(xiàn)狀及完善對(duì)策[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2010年04期
4 宋策;;對(duì)締約過(guò)失責(zé)任基本問(wèn)題的探討[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年26期
5 門(mén)睿;;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任比較研究[J];江蘇警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期
6 周輝;;論締約過(guò)失責(zé)任——論締約過(guò)失對(duì)我國(guó)合同法的借鑒[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2010年22期
7 魏新政;馮軍;;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任解析[J];石家莊鐵路職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期
8 黃邦道;;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任的賠償范圍探析[J];重慶教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期
9 嚴(yán)軍;;淺談締約過(guò)失責(zé)任的賠償范圍[J];中外企業(yè)家;2010年06期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條
1 葉建豐;締約過(guò)失制度研究[D];華僑大學(xué);2000年
2 趙建偉;合同賠償責(zé)任制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2002年
3 楊路明;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任制度研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2003年
4 許飛鵬;違約責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2004年
5 周耀偉;信賴?yán)尜r償之研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2004年
6 劉珂;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任法律制度研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2004年
7 吳欽亮;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2005年
8 羅沛文;請(qǐng)求權(quán)類(lèi)型化研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2005年
9 蘇棟太;締約過(guò)失責(zé)任的賠償范圍研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2006年
10 杜洪東;合同法上的信賴?yán)婕捌滟r償研究[D];山東大學(xué);2006年
本文編號(hào)：1679895
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/jingjilunwen/fangdichanjingjilunwen/1679895.html
