所有权保留制度完善研究

发布时间：2018-04-25 02:04

本文选题：所有权保留 + 公示　；参考：《安徽大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：20世纪以来,世界经济形势发生了翻天覆地的变化,随着市场经济浪潮的冲击,所有权保留制度获得了新的发展,成为现代法律体系中不可或缺的担保方式之一。所有权保留制度,作为一种非典型担保性质制度,它能够满足市场交易主体对资金融通的需要,被学者们称为市场经济发展的"润滑剂"。由于《中华人民共和国合同法》中没有对所有权保留制度适用作出规定,而这一制度在市场交易中非常重要,简略的表达无法满足当前经济形势。因此,2012年最高法鉴于当前出现的困局,颁布实施《关于审理买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》,从适用客体范围、当事人权利义务保护角度对所有权保留进行了颇具操作性的规范,进而确立了这一特殊的担保方式在我国现代民法体系中的地位。关于所有权保留公示方法以及出卖人取回权客体、程序以及买受人期待权的保护等等便引起了广泛争论。在本篇文章中,笔者基于其他国家、地区所有权保留制度的立法例和相关判例学说,挖掘我国所有权保留制度中蕴含的一些问题,目的是摆脱这一制度在公示、取回权、期待权方面存在的困境。通过研究,笔者认为:关于所有权保留公示制度,应在参照各国（地区）法律规定和司法实践的基础上结合我国实际情况,采取区分登记主义。在登记机关的选择上,可以规定公证机关为登记机关;对于登记事项,可以折中美国和我国台湾地区做法;对于登记手续,在进行动产登记的同时可以借助刻记、烙印、在购发票上标记等辅助公示方式。关于取回权客体范围,对于添附物、加工物或者混合物,根据是否可以分割来确定。对于孳息,依据孽息产生于取回权之前还是之后区别对待。就部分取回标的物而言,在标的物为可分割之物的情况下,可以将标的物的一部分作为取回权的客体范围。对于抵押物、质押物,需要考虑所有权保留是否登记和第三人的主观状态,对于留置物只需考虑第三人主观状态。关于取回权对第三人的效力,分买受人将标的物设定抵押、质押、留置,区别对待。对于取回程序,应规定通知取回为强制取回的必经程序,只有在通知取回时买受人不予配合时方可通过诉讼方式强制取回。关于期待权的保护问题,应从内部和外部给予双重保护。内部保护上,应严格限制出卖人行使取回权的条件和确定合理的回赎期;外部保护上,分出卖人再转让标的物,出卖人的担保物权人申请强制执行,出卖人破产债权人申请强制执行三大情形展开。
[Abstract]:Since the 20th century, the world economic situation has undergone earth-shaking changes. With the impact of the wave of market economy, the ownership retention system has gained a new development and become one of the indispensable ways of guarantee in the modern legal system. As a kind of atypical guarantee system, the retention of title system can meet the needs of the main body of market transaction for the financing of funds, which is called "lubricant" of the development of market economy by scholars. Since the contract Law of the people's Republic of China does not provide for the application of the retention of title system, and this system is very important in the market transactions, the brief expression can not meet the current economic situation. Therefore, the Supreme Law of 2012, in view of the current difficulties, promulgated and implemented the interpretation of the applicable Law in cases of disputes relating to the trial of Sale and purchase contracts, from the scope of application to the object of application. From the perspective of the protection of the rights and obligations of the parties, the retention of title is regulated and the position of this special way of guarantee is established in the modern civil law system of our country. The methods of publicizing the retention of title and the object of the seller's right to take back the right, the procedure and the protection of the buyer's right of expectation have aroused widespread controversy. In this article, the author, based on the legislative cases and relevant jurisprudence of other countries and regions, excavates some problems in the system of retention of ownership in our country, in order to get rid of this system in the publicity, take back the right. The dilemma of the right to expect. Through the research, the author thinks that the system of public notice of retention of ownership should be combined with the actual situation of our country on the basis of referring to the laws and regulations of various countries (regions) and judicial practice, and adopt the principle of distinguishing registration. In the selection of registration authorities, the notary authority may be prescribed as the registration authority; for registration matters, a compromise may be made between the practice of the United States and the Taiwan region of China; and for registration procedures, the registration of movable property may be carried out with the aid of engraving and imprinting. Marking on purchase invoices and other auxiliary publicity methods. With regard to the scope of the object of the right of return, the addition, process or mixture is determined according to whether it is divisible. For fruits, according to the interest generated in return before or after the discrimination. As far as partial retrieval of the subject matter is concerned, a part of the subject matter may be regarded as the object scope of the right of return when the subject matter is divisible. For mortgage and pledge, it is necessary to consider whether the retention of title is registered and the subjective state of the third party, and only the subjective state of the third party for the lien. With regard to the effectiveness of the right of return to the third party, the sub-buyer sets the subject matter as a mortgage, a pledge, a lien, and a different treatment. As for the recovery procedure, it should be stipulated that the notice of recovery is a compulsory procedure, and only when the buyer does not cooperate with the buyer when the notice is taken back, can it be forcibly retrieved by way of action. The protection of the right of expectation should be protected both internally and externally. In terms of internal protection, the conditions for the seller to exercise his right to take back and the determination of a reasonable redemption period shall be strictly restricted; in the case of external protection, the seller shall reassign the subject matter, and the seller's real right of security shall apply for enforcement, The seller's bankruptcy creditor applies for enforcement in three major cases.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】