机动车所有权变动问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-21 16:38

本文选题：机动车 + 所有权变动模式　；参考：《郑州大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：《物权法》颁布之前,我国各项法律法规都未规定机动车所有权变动模式,2007年《物权法》第二十四条虽然规定了机动车所有权变动的对抗要件,却并未规定其生效要件,2012年出台的司法解释对该问题也未予以明确说明。笔者认为,对《物权法》第二十四条的解释应当在吸收他国相关经验的基础上,选择一种理论上完善、实践中可行的机动车所有权变动模式。本文共分为三个部分:第一部分是我国关于机动车所有权变动的立法现状与理论争执。我国《物权法》第二十四条只规定了机动车所有权变动的对抗要件,并未规定其生效要件,之后出台的相关司法解释对该问题也未予以明确说明。针对第二十四条,我国存在两种学理解释,一种观点认为其规定了混合主义物权变动模式,另一种观点认为其规定了公示对抗主义物权变动模式,前者的弊端为我国大多数学者所公认,在对机动车所有权变动模式问题进行思考时,有学者提出应摒弃第二十四条的做法,直接采公示要件主义物权变动模式。第二部分是机动车所有权变动之选择。首先,阐述了机动车所有权变动模式的理论基础,笔者认为,机动车所有权变动模式不是一个孤立的概念,而是一个理论体系,其客观表达为公示公信原则,主观表达为善意取得制度;其次,对大陆法系各国关于机动车所有权变动模式的立法例进行比较分析,分别论述了意思主义、形式主义的基本理论及其对机动车所有权变动的影响。之后,笔者提出了自己的观点:我国不应采公示要件主义物权变动模式,而应该采公示对抗主义物权变动模式。第三部分是我国《物权法》第二十四条之法律适用研究。首先,对第二十四条进行法解释,笔者认为《物权法》第二十四条规定了登记对抗主义物权变动模式,分别从公示方式、公示效力、不登记不得对抗“善意第三人”的范围三方面予以论述。其次,对《物权法》第二十四条在法律实践中的适用进行分析,一物二卖是理论界用以比较各种物权变动模式优劣最恰当、最易理解的案例,与混合主义物权变动模式相比,若出现一车二卖的情形,采行登记对抗主义物权变动模式更有利于保护各方当事人的利益,也有利于裁判者迅速做出较为明晰的判断。最后,对《物权法》第二十四条法律适用的完善提出建议,笔者认为,应当建立并完善机动车所有权登记制度。
[Abstract]:Before the promulgation of the property Law, all laws and regulations of our country did not stipulate the mode of vehicle ownership change. Article 24 of the 2007 property Law stipulates the antagonistic elements of the change of motor vehicle ownership. But it does not provide for its entry into force, and the 2012 judicial interpretation did not specify the issue. The author holds that the interpretation of Article 24 of the Real right Law should be based on absorbing the relevant experiences of other countries and choose a mode of vehicle ownership change which is perfect in theory and feasible in practice. This paper is divided into three parts: the first part is the legislative status quo and theoretical dispute about motor vehicle ownership change in China. Article 24 of the property Law of our country only stipulates the antagonistic elements of the change of the ownership of motor vehicles, and does not stipulate the requirements of its validity, and the related judicial explanations issued after that have not clearly explained the problem. In view of Article 24, there are two theoretical interpretations in our country, one is that it prescribes a mixed mode of real right change, the other is that it prescribes the mode of public adversarial real right change. The former's malpractice is recognized by most scholars in our country. When thinking about the mode of motor vehicle ownership change, some scholars put forward that the practice of Article 24 should be abandoned and the mode of real right change of public document doctrine should be adopted directly. The second part is the choice of motor vehicle ownership change. First of all, the author expounds the theoretical basis of the motor vehicle ownership change mode. The author believes that the motor vehicle ownership change mode is not an isolated concept, but a theoretical system, and its objective expression is the principle of publicity and public confidence. The subjective expression is the system of bona fide acquisition. Secondly, the comparative analysis is made on the legislation cases of the motor vehicle ownership change model in the countries of the continental law system, and the meaning doctrine is discussed respectively. The basic theory of formalism and its influence on the change of motor vehicle ownership. After that, the author puts forward his own point of view: our country should not adopt the mode of real right change of publicity elements doctrine, but should adopt the mode of real right change of publicity antagonism. The third part is the study of the application of the law in Article 24 of the Real right Law of China. First of all, the article 24 is interpreted by law. The author thinks that article 24 of Real right Law stipulates the mode of real right change of registration antagonism, respectively from the mode of publicity and the effectiveness of publicity. No registration shall be made against "bona fide third party" in three aspects. Secondly, this paper analyzes the application of Article 24 of Real right Law in legal practice. One thing and two sales are the most appropriate and easy to understand cases to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various modes of real right change in the theoretical circle, compared with the mixed mode of real right change. If there is a situation of "one car and two selling", the adoption of registration adversarial real right change mode is more conducive to the protection of the interests of the parties concerned, but also conducive to the referee to quickly make a more clear judgment. Finally, the author puts forward some suggestions on the perfection of the application of Article 24 of the Real right Law. The author thinks that the registration system of motor vehicle ownership should be established and perfected.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.2

【参考文献】