本文選題：物業(yè)服務(wù)合同 + 抗辯權(quán)　； 參考：《湖南師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)的進(jìn)一步發(fā)展,業(yè)主和物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)的維權(quán)意識(shí)也越來(lái)越強(qiáng),物業(yè)服務(wù)合同作為業(yè)主和物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)聯(lián)系的紐帶,成為了一種獨(dú)立的民事合同。 物業(yè)服務(wù)合同履行中的抗辯權(quán)具有抗辯主體的特殊性、物業(yè)服務(wù)的不可計(jì)量性和持續(xù)性等特點(diǎn)。而我國(guó)關(guān)于物業(yè)服務(wù)合同履行中的抗辯權(quán)的行使與限制僅在2009年4月20日《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理物業(yè)服務(wù)糾紛案件具體應(yīng)用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》中的第5、6條做了原則性的規(guī)定,并沒(méi)有具體進(jìn)行明確。 業(yè)主行使抗辯權(quán)的類型主要表現(xiàn)為業(yè)主對(duì)物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)先履行合同義務(wù)的抗辯、物業(yè)繼受人對(duì)積欠物業(yè)的抗辯、業(yè)主對(duì)前期物業(yè)服務(wù)合同的抗辯、業(yè)主對(duì)物業(yè)協(xié)助義務(wù)的抗辯等；而物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)在單個(gè)或少數(shù)業(yè)主不履行物業(yè)費(fèi)交納義務(wù)時(shí),可針對(duì)該業(yè)主行使停止專屬物業(yè)服務(wù)的抗辯權(quán)；在較多或全體業(yè)主拖欠物業(yè)費(fèi),致使物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)受到影響時(shí),其可通過(guò)采取降低服務(wù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、減少服務(wù)項(xiàng)目或者停止服務(wù)等措施來(lái)行使抗辯權(quán)。 雖然抗辯權(quán)的行使有助于保護(hù)小區(qū)的個(gè)人利益、規(guī)范物業(yè)關(guān)系,但同樣也會(huì)帶來(lái)妨害物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)正常經(jīng)營(yíng)、損害小區(qū)公共環(huán)境、破壞社會(huì)秩序等危害,因此,在建筑物共有部分出現(xiàn)故障或者瑕疵,需要進(jìn)行維修而物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)維修不及時(shí),單個(gè)業(yè)主不能基于建筑物共有部分的權(quán)利,對(duì)物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)行使抗辯權(quán),而應(yīng)當(dāng)經(jīng)過(guò)一定數(shù)量或比例的業(yè)主同意,共同行使抗辯權(quán)；另外,對(duì)全體業(yè)主以沒(méi)有簽訂前期物業(yè)服務(wù)合同為由行使抗辯權(quán)也應(yīng)當(dāng)加以限制。同樣地,當(dāng)單個(gè)業(yè)主沒(méi)有履行物業(yè)費(fèi)的交納義務(wù)時(shí),物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)通過(guò)停水、電、氣、暖等方式進(jìn)行抗辯屬于侵權(quán)行為,應(yīng)當(dāng)予以限制；當(dāng)全體業(yè)主都拒絕交納物業(yè)費(fèi)時(shí),物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)也應(yīng)當(dāng)先向業(yè)主委員會(huì)協(xié)商,然后做好物業(yè)服務(wù)的交接工作后再行使撤離權(quán),不能任意行使撤離權(quán)。 對(duì)物業(yè)服務(wù)合同履行中的抗辯權(quán)行使中存在的問(wèn)題,應(yīng)當(dāng)通過(guò)規(guī)范抗辯權(quán)的行使來(lái)予以完善。建立完善的物業(yè)費(fèi)收繳制度,解決好業(yè)主與物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)的物業(yè)費(fèi)交納問(wèn)題；列明抗辯權(quán)的行使和限制行使的理由和情形,更加明確業(yè)主和物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)權(quán)利的行使和限制；明確業(yè)主和物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)在訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任,規(guī)范二者在訴訟中的行為。這樣才能保障物業(yè)服務(wù)合同履行中抗辯權(quán)的規(guī)范行使,保障業(yè)主和物業(yè)服務(wù)企業(yè)的利益。
[Abstract]:With the further development of the real estate industry in our country, the awareness of protecting the rights of the owners and the property service enterprises is becoming stronger and stronger. As the link between the owners and the property service enterprises, the property service contract has become an independent civil contract. The right of defense in the performance of property service contract is characterized by the particularity of the main body of defense, the non-quantifiable and continuous nature of the property service. However, the exercise and restriction of the right of defense in the performance of property service contract in our country is only in Article 5, 6 of the Supreme people's Court on April 20, 2009, on the interpretation of some issues concerning the Application of Law in the trial of disputes over property Services Has made rules of principle, There is no specific clarity. The types of the owner exercising the right of defense are mainly the defense of the owner to fulfill the contract obligation of the property service enterprise, the defense of the property successor to the outstanding property, the defense of the owner to the pre-contract of the property service, The owner's defense of the duty of property assistance, etc., and the property service enterprise may exercise the right of defense to stop the exclusive property service against the owner when a single or a few owners do not perform the obligation to pay the property fee, and in the case of more or all the owners of the property, When the operation of real estate service enterprises is affected, it may exercise the right of defense by taking measures such as lowering service standards, reducing service items or stopping service. Although the exercise of the right of defense is conducive to the protection of the personal interests of the community and the regulation of property relations, it will also bring harm to the normal operation of property service enterprises, damage to the public environment of the residential areas, and damage to social order. If there is a fault or defect in the common part of the building and the maintenance of the property service enterprise is not timely, the individual owner cannot exercise the right of defense against the property service enterprise on the basis of the rights of the common part of the building, The right of defense should be exercised jointly with the consent of a certain number or proportion of the owners; in addition, the exercise of the right of defense by all the owners should also be restricted on the basis of not signing a pre-contract of property service. Similarly, when a single owner fails to fulfill his obligation to pay the property fee, a property service enterprise that defends itself by means of water, electricity, gas and heating is an infringement and should be restricted; when all the owners refuse to pay the property fee, Property service enterprises should first consult with the owners' committee, and then do a good job of the transfer of property services before exercising the right of withdrawal, can not arbitrarily exercise the right of withdrawal. The problems existing in the exercise of the right of defense in the performance of property service contract should be improved by regulating the exercise of the right of defense. To establish a perfect collection system of property fees, to solve the problem of property fee payment of owners and property service enterprises, to list the reasons and circumstances of exercising and restricting the exercise of the right of defense, and to clarify the exercise and restriction of the rights of owners and property service enterprises. Clarify the burden of proof in litigation between owners and property service enterprises, and standardize their actions in litigation. In this way, the right of defense in the performance of service contract can be guaranteed and the interests of owners and property service enterprises can be protected.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王玉潔;;三案例看如何化解物業(yè)糾紛[J];城市開(kāi)發(fā);2009年23期

2 張小紅,韋人;物業(yè)管理服務(wù)合同的法律特征[J];法學(xué);1998年07期

3 劉長(zhǎng)森;物業(yè)管理立法的若干問(wèn)題探討[J];中國(guó)房地產(chǎn);2002年06期

4 關(guān)永宏 ,王曉華;試論物業(yè)管理中的若干法律問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)房地產(chǎn);2002年11期

5 陳佳;;物業(yè)服務(wù)合同中的物業(yè)費(fèi)請(qǐng)求權(quán)研究——兼評(píng)法釋[2009]8號(hào)中的相關(guān)規(guī)定[J];河北法學(xué);2010年05期

6 劉蕊,畢勝;物業(yè)管理問(wèn)題淺析[J];建筑管理現(xiàn)代化;2003年01期

7 吳士和;物業(yè)管理收費(fèi)問(wèn)題初探[J];科技與管理;2001年03期

8 趙慧芝;對(duì)物業(yè)管理收費(fèi)難問(wèn)題的探討[J];遼寧財(cái)稅;2002年04期

9 高芙蓉;物業(yè)管理的法律思考[J];前沿;2002年03期

10 郭民,孫奎立;論物業(yè)服務(wù)合同[J];邵陽(yáng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2092014