关于“凶宅”交易纠纷之法律思考

发布时间：2018-06-11 12:47

本文选题：凶宅 + 欺诈　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：现今,人们购房不再只关注于房屋的质量和权属方面的信息,购房时买受人还会考虑到房屋周边的环境及房屋本身的住房信息,特别是在二手房的交易过程中体现更为明显。随着经济的发展,人们的需求水平也不断提高,房屋不能仅是满足于抗寒保暖和遮风避雨,买受人更希望的是居住在其所购房屋内有一种舒适、安宁的享受。但近年来,许多购买二手房的买受人这种舒适安逸梦被打破。出现许多购买到“凶宅”的现象,致买卖双方未达成协议而起诉到法院要求撤销房屋买卖合同、赔偿损失或减少部分价款等纠纷。但由于我国法律上对“凶宅”并无明确的规定,导致各地各级法院对关于“凶宅”之类的买卖合同纠纷作出不同的判决。为打破同案不同判的现象、为统一司法实践中的裁判标准,通过对司法实践中凶宅交易纠纷的思考,本文从以下几个部分重新认识凶宅交易纠纷,并提出解决凶宅交易纠纷的构想。本文先是在第一部分通过引用案例的形式列举了我国司法实践中存在的依不同法律依据判决同一类“凶宅”交易案件的三种处理途径,即依公序良俗原则、侵权责任、合同责任三种法律依据作出判决,然后提取了依据这三种处理途径关于“凶宅”交易纠纷的理论问题。在文章的第二部分,通过对学界关于“凶宅”范围限定的三种主流观点进行对比分析,得出本文对“凶宅”的认定范围,即“凶宅”应是指在房屋交易之前,在房屋内发生或居住在房屋内的人曾发生非正常死亡的事件,因卖方未完全告知买方这一重要事件信息,致买方得知该信息后心理产生极大恐惧或排斥而不能正常居住的房屋。在第二部分还对“凶宅”信息的性质及“凶宅”信息的披露问题进行了详细分析,总的来说,“凶宅”信息属于自然人的隐私,但出卖人对“凶宅”信息有向特定的买受人披露的义务,出卖人应如实的告知买受人房屋的信息,全面履行自己的义务,否则其行为将违反《民法通则》第四条、《合同法》第六条、第六十条的规定,因构成欺诈而影响房屋买卖合同的效力。在文章的第三部分,对我国司法实践中存在的依不同法律依据判决同一类“凶宅”案件的三种处理途径进行分析,得出处理“凶宅”交易纠纷案件应适用合同责任依据来处理并根据纠纷的不同情形作出不同判决的结论。文章的最后还提出了减少或避免再次发生“凶宅”交易纠纷的构想,如在司法解释中明确规定买卖双方的信息披露义务,明确规定违反此义务后的责任承担形式等。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, people no longer only pay attention to the quality and ownership of housing information, buyers will also take into account the housing surrounding environment and housing itself, especially in the second-hand housing transactions reflected more clearly. With the development of economy, the level of people's demand is also increasing, the house can not only be satisfied with the cold, warmth and shelter from the wind and rain, but also the buyer wants to live in the house they bought has a comfortable, peaceful enjoyment. But in recent years, many second-hand buyers of this comfortable dream was broken. There are many phenomena of purchase of "house", resulting in the buyer and seller did not reach an agreement and sued to the court to cancel the contract to buy and sell the house, compensation for loss or reduction of some of the price disputes. However, there is no clear stipulation in our country's law on the "villainy", which leads the courts at all levels to make different judgments on the disputes about the sale and purchase contract of the "villainy". In order to break the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case, in order to unify the judgment standard in the judicial practice, through the thinking of the dispute of the villainy transaction in the judicial practice, this article reunderstands the dispute of the house transaction from the following several parts. And put forward the idea of resolving the dispute of the house transaction. In the first part, the author lists three ways of dealing with the same kind of "many-house" transaction cases according to different legal basis, that is, according to the principle of public order and good custom, tort liability, which exists in the judicial practice of our country through the form of quoting cases. Three kinds of legal basis of contract liability make the judgment, then have extracted the theoretical question about the dispute of "the fierce house" transaction according to these three kinds of ways. In the second part of the article, through the comparison and analysis of the three mainstream viewpoints about the scope of "mania" in academic circles, the author draws a conclusion that the scope of this article is to identify the "villainy", that is, "villainy" should be defined before the housing transaction. An abnormal death occurred in or in the house, because the seller did not completely inform the buyer of this important event information, which caused the buyer to have great psychological fear or exclusion after learning of the information and could not live in the house normally. In the second part, the nature of the information and the disclosure of the information are analyzed in detail. In general, the information of the "house" belongs to the privacy of the natural person. However, the seller has the obligation to disclose the information of the "house" to a specific buyer, and the seller shall truthfully inform the buyer of the information of the house and fully fulfill its obligations. Otherwise, it will violate the provisions of Article 4 of the General principles of Civil Law, Article 6 of the contract Law, Article 60 of the contract Law, and affect the validity of the contract for the purchase and sale of houses because it constitutes fraud. In the third part of the article, the author analyzes the three ways to deal with the same kind of "house" cases, which exist in the judicial practice of our country according to different legal basis. It comes to the conclusion that the contract liability should be applied to deal with the disputes and make different judgments according to the different situations of the disputes. At the end of the article, the author puts forward the idea of reducing or avoiding the dispute of "villainy" transaction, such as the clear stipulation of the obligation of disclosure of information between buyer and seller in the judicial interpretation, the form of liability bearing after violating this obligation, and so on.
【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】：D923.6

【相似文献】