论我国居住权制度的设立

发布时间：2018-04-27 22:39

本文选题：居住权 + 约定居住权　；参考：《四川大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 追溯了居住权最初在罗马法中设立的目的，即解决个人私利基础上的，社会道德范畴之内的抚养赡养义务。接着，阐述了承继罗马法的德法两大民法典中成熟的居住权制度，及后来受其影响产生意大利民法典、瑞士民法典中也设立了居住权制度。同时分析了为何日本、台湾两地未设居住权制度的原因，结合我国目前现实生活中的现状，即监护关系、婚姻关系、弱势群体的保护关系中居住权客观存在的依据，归纳了现今主要存在的学者们关于居住权制度的各种反对意见，如居住权没有设立的现实基础、不能融入我国现有的制度框架、会导致居住关系混乱等等，继而从现实需要、法律局限、房屋效益的最大化，，特别对于婚姻关系中的居住问题单独分析，从而得出居住权在特殊群体的保护方面的优越性以及居住权制度设立的必要性。文章第二部分从居住权的具体性质入手，根据居住权客体的特征，按照居住权的设立方式，将居住权划分为约定居住权和法定居住权两大类。其中，约定居住权是指根据房屋所有人的意思而设立。法定居住权是指根据法律的规定直接产生的居住权。前者主要针对遗嘱、遗赠、合同这三种房屋所有人得依自己独立意思为关系人设立居住权的情况。后者则体现了居住权存在本身所应当具备的公益性质，即主要解决存在的各种弱势群体，如父母、婚姻、残疾人、老年人等的居住问题。这部分人在客观环境下，缺乏对等的地位来达成约定。这两种类型在设立居住权制度之时都应涉及，而不应有所偏颇，否则对于居住权来说，就是一个不完整的体系。第三章节对2005年公布的物权法草案中已经成形的居住权制度的各项问题结合实际加以讨论，根据现有的条文，在主体、客体、设立方式、登记、随之享有的各项权利、义务及消灭的九个环节上提出笔者认为相对合理的建议。在最后的基本评价中，通过对人大讨论稿、征求意见稿等资料的分析研究，解释了为何居住权会在2007年正式通过的物权法上被予以删除的主要原因。即居住权的适用面很窄，基于家庭关系的居住问题适用婚姻法有关抚养、赡养等规定，基于租赁关系的居住问题适用合同法等有关法律的规定，这些情形都不适用草案关于居住权的规定。而且，居住权大多发生在亲属朋友之间，一旦发生纠纷，可以通过现行有关法律规定的救济渠道加以解决。但这样做，显见没有真正意识到居住权在弱势客体上的特殊作用，而轻率的将其刻意忽略的表现。当然，这也极有可能是居住权制度本身过于概念化和学术化的关系。] 结语部分，对于物权法对居住权设立的问题未予确认会造成的危害进行简要的描述，再次肯定了居住权制度设立的必要性。
[Abstract]:The purpose of the right of abode originally established in Roman law is to solve the maintenance obligation within the scope of social morality on the basis of personal interests. Then, this paper expounds the mature residence right system in the German and French civil codes, which inherited the Roman law, and the Italian civil code under the influence of it, and the residence right system is also established in the Swiss civil code. At the same time, it analyzes the reasons why there is no residence right system in Japan and Taiwan, combined with the reality of our country, that is, guardianship relationship, marriage relationship, the protection of vulnerable groups in the protection of the objective existence of the right of abode. This paper sums up all kinds of opposition opinions of the scholars on the system of residence right, such as the fact that the right of residence has not been established and cannot be integrated into the existing institutional framework of our country, which will lead to the confusion of the housing relationship and so on, and then from the practical needs. The limitation of the law, the maximization of the housing benefit, especially the analysis of the housing problem in the marriage relationship, the superiority of the residence right in the protection of the special group and the necessity of the establishment of the residence right system. The second part of the article starts with the specific nature of the right of residence, according to the characteristics of the object of the right of residence, according to the way of establishment of the right of residence, the right of residence is divided into two categories: the agreed right of residence and the legal right of residence. Among them, the right of abode is established according to the intention of the owner of the house. The legal right of residence refers to the right of residence produced directly according to the provisions of the law. The former mainly aims at three kinds of housing owners: will, bequest and contract. The latter embodies the commonweal nature of the existence of the right of residence, that is, the settlement of the existence of various vulnerable groups, such as parents, marriage, the disabled, the elderly and other living problems. This part of the people in the objective environment, lack of equal status to reach agreement. These two types should be involved in the establishment of residence right system, but should not be biased, otherwise, it is an incomplete system for residence right. The third chapter discusses the problems of the system of residence rights, which have been formed in the draft of the property Law published in 2005, according to the existing provisions, in the subject, the object, the way of establishment, the registration, and the rights enjoyed therewith. On the nine links of obligation and elimination, the author puts forward some suggestions that are relatively reasonable. In the final basic evaluation, through the analysis of the draft of the people's Congress and the draft of soliciting opinions, this paper explains the main reasons why the right of residence was deleted in the property Law that was formally passed in 2007. That is, the scope of application of the right of residence is very narrow, and the provisions of the Marriage Law on the maintenance and maintenance of residence on the basis of family relations, and the provisions of the relevant laws such as the contract Law on the issue of residence on the basis of the lease relationship, are applicable. None of these cases applies to the provisions of the draft concerning the right of abode. Moreover, the right of residence mostly occurs between relatives and friends, once disputes occur, they can be solved through the relief channels provided by relevant laws. However, in doing so, it is obvious that the special role of residence right in the vulnerable object is not really realized, and it is thoughtfully ignored. Of course, it is also highly likely that the residency system itself is too conceptualized and academically oriented.] In the conclusion part, the author gives a brief description of the harm caused by the establishment of residence right in real right law, and confirms the necessity of the establishment of residence right system again.
【学位授予单位】：四川大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】