不动产二重买卖法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-14 10:13

【摘要】：2010年以来，随着不动产市价的剧烈上涨，不动产二重买卖之现象日益增多，由此产生了各种问题，如诚实信用基本原则被践踏、市场信赖削弱、各方利益失衡等，而现有立法之规制稍显无力，理论之研究过于陈旧，因此，重新探讨这一问题仍然必要。文章正文共分为四个部分，即不动产二重买卖基本概念之厘定、二重买卖之后买卖合同的效力、二重买卖合同的履行和守约方的法律救济。第一部分界定了不动产二重买卖之构成，追问了问题起源，并多角度分析了这一行为之法律可非难性，从而确立了文章的基本立场。不动产二重买卖之构成不要求出卖人对不动产保有所有权或处分权。不动产二重买卖之发生具有必然性，其原因在于出卖人不顾信用、牟取私利之趋利本性和物权、债权权利公示可能性以及公示对抗力上的法律差异。然这一现象违背了诚实信用原则，应受法律否定性评价，效率违约理论并不能证成这一行为的正当性。第二部分从生效合同之构成要件切入，指出二重之因素对于后买卖合同效力之影响主要在于合同标的是否适当。当第二买受人不知在先交易和仅单纯知情时，标的不具有违法性，后买卖合同有效；当第二买受人不仅知晓在先交易，还故意以违背善良风俗之方式使前买卖合同无法得到实际履行，，损害第一买受人利益，标的不适当，第二买卖合同无效。由此得出，大多数不动产二重买卖之后买卖合同有效，除了恶意串通、引诱违约等情形。第三部分依循第二部分之结论进一步追问两个买卖合同有效情形下合同履行之问题。首先梳理了现有立法之规定，从一房多租、动产一物多卖以及一地（国有土地使用权）多转情形下法律对合同履行顺序的选择可看出公示性因素对确定哪一合同得获实际履行的重要影响以及法律保护在先交易的价值取向。接着，依据这一启示对知情因素、登记、预告登记、实际占有、合同成立时间对合同履行之影响进行了逐一分析，由此得出不动产二重买卖的合同履行顺序依前列因素顺次确定之结论。最后一部分紧接着重点分析另一未获实际履行之买受人的救济问题。首先探讨了合同法领域的违约损害赔偿请求权、双倍赔偿请求权、代偿请求权、基于信托产生的受益交出请求权、撤销权等救济方式，得出结论：违约损害赔偿请求权下，转售利益或不动产价值上涨利益应属合同履行后可得利益，若受损害人为第一买受人，可得利益的参照为后合同价格；若受损害人为第二买受人，于其不明知在先交易时，可得利益的参照为出卖人违约时的市场价格，于其明知时，其只得请求赔偿直接损失也即所受损害。另外，前买受人亦可选择行使代偿请求权，或在具备双倍赔偿请求权和撤销权行使条件时选择相应救济方式。然后探讨了侵权法领域可得救济的有限性，即仅当后买受人构成侵权时，前买受人可以主张侵权损害赔偿。最后通过比较，说明此时前买受人通过主张后买卖合同无效予以救济更为有利。
[Abstract]:Since 2010, with the dramatic rise in real estate market prices, the phenomenon of double sale of real estate has been increasing, resulting in a variety of problems, such as the violation of the basic principles of good faith, weakening of market trust, imbalance of interests of all parties, and so on. However, the existing legislative regulation is slightly weak, the theoretical study is too old, therefore, to re-explore this issue is still. It is necessary.
The text is divided into four parts, that is, the definition of the basic concept of double sale of real estate, the validity of the sale contract after double sale, the performance of the double sale contract and the legal remedy of the defending party.
The first part defines the composition of the double sale of real estate, inquires into the origin of the problem, and analyzes the legal reproachability of the act from various angles, thus establishing the basic position of the article. However, this phenomenon violates the principle of good faith and should be negatively evaluated by law. The theory of efficient breach of contract can not justify this behavior.
In the second part, the author points out that the effect of the dual factor on the validity of the contract is mainly due to the appropriateness of the subject matter of the contract. The intention is to make the former contract of sale impossible to be fulfilled in a manner contrary to the good custom, which damages the interests of the first buyer, the unsuitable subject matter, and the second contract of sale invalid.
The third part, following the conclusion of the second part, further inquires into the problem of the performance of the contract under the validity of the two sales contracts. Firstly, it combs out the provisions of the existing legislation. From the choice of the order of performance of the contract under the circumstances of multi-rent of one house, multi-sale of movable property and multi-transfer of one land (state-owned land use right), it can be seen that the public factor determines the order of performance of the contract. Next, according to the revelation, the paper analyzes the influence of the factors of knowing, registration, notice registration, actual possession and the time of contract formation on the performance of the contract one by one, and concludes that the order of performance of the contract for the double sale of real estate is in accordance with the foregoing factors. A definite conclusion.
The last part focuses on the relief of another buyer who has not been actually performed. Firstly, it discusses the right of claim for damages in breach of contract, the right of claim for double compensation, the right of claim for compensation, the right of claim for compensation for damages in breach of contract. If the injured party is the first buyer, the reference of the benefit shall be the price of the subsequent contract; if the injured party is the second buyer, the reference of the benefit shall be the market price at the time of the seller's breach of contract when he is not aware of the prior transaction. In addition, the former buyer may choose to exercise the right of claim for compensation, or choose the corresponding remedy when he has the conditions to exercise the right of claim for double compensation and the right of revocation. Finally, through comparison, it shows that it is more advantageous for the buyer to relieve the damages caused by the invalidity of the post-claim sale contract.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】