论我国占有之诉的缺失与设立

发布时间：2018-05-02 22:41

本文选题：占有 + 占有保护　；参考：《南京师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：占有制度在民法理论中扮演着重要角色,与人们的日常生活息息相关,人们判断某人对某物享有权利,最直接的表象就是物在他们手中,这体现了占有制度的公示功能,虽然这种公示功能不一定完全正确,但是人们不会轻易去破坏这种占有状态。占有性质的特殊性导致了这种现象的产生。如何界定占有的性质,各国的法律有不同的规定,学术上亦有不同的认识,代表观点主要有事实说、权利说、权能说、法益说、混合说、法律关系说等。2007年我国颁布施行的《物权法》用五个法律条文规定了占有制度,这五个法律条文的主要内容是关于占有的保护问题,根据法律条文的内容可知,若他人以自己的私力侵夺、妨害占有时,占有人可以行使三种权利来保护占有,一是提起返还占有物的权利,二是请求他人排除妨害的权利,三是请求他人防止妨害的权利。占有的概念起源于罗马法,罗马法中最早规定用占有令状制度来保护占有,后因令状制度申请过程繁琐,不能满足人们的需要而被诉权制度代替。我国《物权法》对占有的保护给予了明确的规定,虽然这些法律依据使得对占有的保护名正言顺,但是在《民事诉讼法》上没有规定与之相适应的审判模式,这为法院审理占有纠纷带来了不便。起诉到法院的案件原则上都有实体法上的依据,但并不是所有受实体法保护的案件在程序法上都有与之匹配的诉讼模式,这既不现实又浪费国家的立法资源。占有性质的独特性使得占有之诉与本权之诉之间存在差异,本权之诉的审判程序不一定适合占有之诉,因而有必要在程序法中单独规定适用占有之诉的诉讼模式。从国内外现有的立法来看,占有之诉的诉讼模式主要有三种,一是以法国为代表的动产与不动产区分保护模式;二是以德国和日本为代表的假处分模式;三是以我国台湾地区法律为代表的简易程序保护模式。在借鉴国内外已有的诉讼模式的基础上,结合我国的司法环境,选择适合我国占有之诉的诉讼模式,弥补我国程序法上对占有之诉规定的空白。
[Abstract]:The possession system plays an important role in the theory of civil law and is closely related to people's daily life. The most direct representation of a person's right to something is that the thing is in their hands, which reflects the public function of the possession system. Although this publicity function may not be entirely correct, it is not easy for people to destroy the state of possession. The particularity of possession leads to this phenomenon. As to how to define the nature of possession, the laws of different countries have different provisions, and they also have different understanding academically. There are mainly facts, rights, powers, legal interests, and mixed theories, which represent the main points of view. The property Law promulgated and implemented in China in 2007 provides the possession system with five legal provisions, the main contents of which are about the protection of possession, according to the contents of the legal provisions, If others use their own private power to invade and obstruct possession, the possessor can exercise three rights to protect possession, one is to bring up the right to return possession, the other is to ask others to exclude the obstruction, and the third is to ask others to prevent obstruction. The concept of possession originates from Roman law. In Roman law, the system of writ of possession is used to protect possession, but it is replaced by the system of right of action because the procedure of application for writ system is too complicated to satisfy the needs of people. The property Law of our country has clearly stipulated the protection of possession. Although these legal bases make the protection of possession proper, there is no corresponding trial mode in the Civil procedure Law. This brought inconvenience to the court in handling the possession dispute. In principle, the cases brought to the court have the basis of substantive law, but not all cases protected by substantive law have corresponding procedural patterns in procedural law, which is neither realistic nor wasteful of the country's legislative resources. Because of the uniqueness of possession, there is a difference between the litigation of possession and the right of action, and the trial procedure of this right of action is not necessarily suitable for the action of possession, so it is necessary to apply the mode of litigation of possession in the procedural law separately. From the current legislation at home and abroad, there are three main modes of litigation: one is the mode of distinguishing protection between movable and immovable property represented by France, the other is the mode of false disposition represented by Germany and Japan. Third, the model of summary procedure protection represented by the laws of Taiwan area. On the basis of drawing lessons from the existing litigation mode at home and abroad and combining the judicial environment of our country, the author chooses the suit mode suitable for our country's possession litigation, and makes up for the blank in the procedural law of our country.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2

【参考文献】