特殊动产所有权变动模式研究

发布时间：2018-06-07 09:52

本文选题：特殊动产 + 所有权变动　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：特殊动产又被称为“准不动产”,我国法律法规并未对特殊动产做出确切定义,只是采取列举方式确定了其外延,特殊动产包括机动车、船舶及航空器等。《物权法》、《买卖合同司法解释》以及《机动车登记规定》、《船舶登记条例》等针对特殊动产的行政法规、规章均规定了特殊动产所有权变动采“交付生效+登记对抗”模式,此模式为我国独创,实则大陆法系两大物权变动模式的混合,而这一混合是特殊动产所有权变动规则出现诸多问题和矛盾的逻辑起始点。我国现有特殊动产所有权变动模式面临的逻辑困境主要有三:其一,“登记作用虚无化”,“不经登记,不得对抗善意第三人”的规定只有在特殊动产经占有改定方式进行转移的情形下才具有实际意义,在其他情形下均无实际适用余地;其二,“公信力体系混乱”,目前法律同时适用均具有权利表征作用的两种不同的公示方式将造成该两种公示方式之间效力的冲突,在目前特殊动产采“交付生效+登记对抗”的独特模式下,登记的实质作用微乎其微,一方面不利于第三人信赖利益的保护,另一方面也使得特殊动产所有权的公示体系混乱,导致第三人主观善意与恶意缺乏判断的标准,无法建立起有效的特殊动产所有权公示制度;其三,“登记连续性中断”,登记的非必要性,加之登记的非强制性,必然会带来登记的非连续性,登记的非连续性反之又会直接影响登记公示效力的发挥,一旦登记中断,则必然会出现登记名义人和真实权利人不一致的情形。而产生上述逻辑窘境的原因主要有二:第一,登记的逻辑起点认识错误,在权利人与权利外观人本就实现了一致的前提下,无需另外引进一套权利外观以证明权属归属,但是在本权与外观已经实现了一致的前提下,法律又引进了一个特殊动产所有权的表征方式——登记,这一过犹不及的规定使得特殊动产所有权出现两个权利外观——占有和登记,反而使得外界对于特殊动产所有权的表征方式产生疑惑;第二,登记的法律效果定位错误,登记是国家公权力介入而进行的行为,法定性、程序性等特征决定其应更具准确性、权威性,因此登记的公示效力应该强于占有的公示效力,登记不仅应具有权利推定效力,还应具有权利形成效力。从特殊动产的特殊属性分析,登记公示方式要优于占有公示方式,且从我国法律制度传统及现有客观制度背景出发,我国宜采取形式主义,不宜采取意思主义,为了交易安全及效率考虑,宜采登记要件主义模式,在确定特殊动产所有权变动模式的前提下,应该完善相应配套法律制度。
[Abstract]:The special movable property is also called "quasi-immovable property". The laws and regulations of our country do not define the special movable property exactly, but use enumeration method to determine its extension, and the special movable property includes motor vehicle. Administrative regulations on special movable property, such as the Law on property, the Judicial interpretation of the contract of purchase and purchase, the provisions on the Registration of Motor vehicles, and the regulations on ship Registration, etc. The regulations stipulate that the change of ownership of special movable property adopts the mode of "delivery and effective registration antagonism", which is the original creation of our country. In fact, it is the mixture of the two modes of real right change in the civil law system. This mixture is the logical starting point of many problems and contradictions in the rules of change of ownership of special movable property. There are three main logical dilemmas facing the current mode of change of ownership of special movable property in our country: first, "nothingness of registration function", "without registration," The provision that "shall not be against bona fide third parties" is of practical significance only if the special movable property is transferred by the means of possession and determination, and there is no practical room for application in any other case; secondly, the "credibility system is chaotic," At present, the application of two different modes of publicity, both of which have the function of representation of rights, will result in a conflict of effectiveness between the two modes of publicity, under the unique mode of "delivery and effective registration antagonism" in the present special movable property. On the one hand, it is not conducive to the protection of the trust interests of the third party, on the other hand, it also causes confusion of the public display system of the ownership of special movable property, which leads to the third party's subjective goodwill and malice lack the judgment standard. It is impossible to establish an effective system of publicizing the ownership of special movable property. Thirdly, the "continuity of registration", the non-necessity of registration, and the non-mandatory nature of registration will inevitably bring about discontinuity of registration. In turn, the discontinuity of registration will directly affect the effectiveness of public registration. Once registration is interrupted, there will inevitably be a discrepancy between the registered nominal person and the real right holder. There are two main reasons for the above logic dilemma: first, the logic starting point of registration is wrong. Under the premise that the right owner and the right appearance person have realized the same, it is not necessary to introduce a set of rights appearance to prove the ownership of the right. However, on the premise that this right and appearance have been consistent, the law has introduced a special form of representation of the title of movable property-registration. This excessive regulation makes the ownership of special movable property appear two rights appearance-possession and registration, on the contrary, makes the outside world doubt about the expression of the ownership of special movable property. Second, the legal effect of registration is wrong. Registration is an act carried out by the public power of the state. The legal and procedural characteristics decide that the registration should be more accurate and authoritative. Therefore, the effectiveness of public registration should be stronger than that of possession, and registration should not only have the effect of presumption of right. It should also have the effect of forming rights. From the analysis of the special attribute of special movable property, the way of registering public notice should be superior to that of possession, and proceeding from the tradition of our legal system and the background of existing objective system, our country should adopt formalism rather than will doctrine. In order to consider the security and efficiency of transaction, it is appropriate to adopt the registration essentialism mode. On the premise of determining the changing mode of ownership of special movable property, the corresponding supporting legal system should be perfected.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.2

【相似文献】