申腾公司诉李某贾某借款纠纷案的法律性质分析

发布时间：2018-06-19 13:10

本文选题：非典型物权担保 + 后让与担保　；参考：《兰州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文以“申腾公司与贾某李某借款纠纷案”法律分析为切入点,在对本案进行法律分析的基础之上,尝试着去探究担保性房屋买卖合同的具体法律性质。本文包括四章,第一章对本案的案情发展经过以及审理过程进行简要的介绍。第二章在第一章的基础之上归纳出本案的两个争议焦点--关于担保性房屋买卖合同的法律定性以及其与物权法定原则之间的关系。第三章通过引用实务之中不同的案例以及结合2015年8月颁行的《最高人民法院关于审理民间借贷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》(以下简称《规定》)中的第二十四条去论证探究担保性买卖合同法律性质的必要性与紧迫性。在分析完撰写本文的意义之后,去进一步分析担保性房屋买卖合同设置的担保是物的担保还是债的担保,通过分析指出其应是物权性质的担保。并且通过与抵押权、质权、留置权等典型担保物权进行比较,指出案涉合同设置的担保不属于法定担保物权的任何一种,其应属于一种法定担保物权之外的非典型物权担保。进而在前述的基础之上去探寻其究竟属于哪种非典型的物权担保,在对比国内各种学说以及借鉴德、日、意等国成功经验的基础上,提出自己的观点--应将其性质定性为后让与担保,并尝试对其进行重新定义。第四章,在确定完自己的观点之后,去探析对其后让与担保的定性是否有违物权法定原则,通过一系列分析论证,得出物权法定缓和的结论,进而论证后让与担保制度具有实务操作的可行性,为后让与担保制度的确立找到法律依据。结论部分归纳总结全文,并重申本案中的担保性房屋买卖合同属于非典型物权担保、其确立并不违背物权法定原则的结论。
[Abstract]:Based on the legal analysis of the case of "the dispute between Shenteng Company and Jia Mou Li", this paper tries to explore the specific legal nature of the secured house sale contract on the basis of the legal analysis of the case. This paper includes four chapters. The first chapter briefly introduces the development of the case and the trial process. On the basis of the first chapter, the second chapter summarizes the two controversial focuses of the case-the legal nature of the contract for the sale of secured houses and its relationship with the principle of the law of real right. Chapter 3: by citing different cases in practice and in conjunction with the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on certain legal issues applicable to Private loan cases issued in August 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "provisions") No. 24 Article to demonstrate the necessity and urgency of exploring the legal nature of secured sale contracts. After analyzing the significance of writing this paper, the author further analyzes whether the guarantee set up in the contract of sale and purchase of secured houses is the guarantee of real or debt, and points out that it should be the guarantee of property right. By comparing with the typical security interests such as mortgage, pledge and lien, the author points out that the security set up in the contract involved in the case does not belong to any of the legal security interests, but should belong to a kind of atypical interest security other than a legal security right. And then on the basis of the foregoing, to find out which kind of non-typical real right guarantee belongs to, on the basis of comparing various domestic theories and drawing lessons from the successful experiences of Germany, Japan, Italy, and other countries. Put forward one's own point of view-its nature should be characterized as post-concession guarantee, and try to redefine it. The fourth chapter, after determining his own point of view, to explore whether the qualitative nature of the subsequent transfer of security is contrary to the principle of property law, through a series of analysis and argumentation, we can draw the conclusion that the law of property is relaxed. Then it proves that the post-transfer guarantee system has the feasibility of practical operation, and finds the legal basis for the establishment of the post-transferable guarantee system. The conclusion part summarizes the full text, and reiterates that the secured house sale contract in this case belongs to the atypical real right guarantee, and its establishment does not violate the principle of the law of real right.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.282;D920.5

【相似文献】