交行嘉善支行诉意联印花厂等金融借款合同纠纷案评析

发布时间：2018-06-15 01:20

本文选题：未成年人 + 监护人　；参考：《湖南大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着我国社会的发展,人民生活水平的提高,老百姓买房已成为中国社会的常态。然而,近年来,有不少父母在购买商品房时出于某些原因,会选择将购买的房屋直接登记在其未成年子女的名下,造成未成年人“被购房”“被房主”,出现了“娃娃业主”现象,并衍生出不少法律问题。尤其在金融借款合同纠纷中,监护人(主要指父母),以未成年子女名下的房屋为借款人进行抵押担保,抵押行为是否有效等法律问题最为常见。而该问题无论是在司法实务层面还是在理论研究层面,都颇具争议。因此,研究司法实践中的相关案例具有一定的现实意义。对涉及相关法律问题的典型金融借款合同纠纷案例进行分析,从案件的争议焦点入手,借助于关于未成人财产保护制度相关理论、立法及司法实践等经验,具体探讨案件几个争议的焦点即：监护人能否随意处置未成年人名下的房产；债权人能否接受以未成年人名下的房产设定的抵押；未成年人房产抵押效力如何。最终得出如下结论：监护人处置未成年人名下的房产,必须以“为被监护人利益”原则为前提,不得随意处置其财产,损害未成年人合法权益。法律法规及相关司法解释虽未明文禁止监护人以未成年人名下房产抵押贷款,但债权人在接受该类抵押时,必须对该抵押行为是否符合“为被监护人利益”原则进行审慎审查,否则会存在被法院认定抵押行为无效的潜在风险。未成人房产抵押效力的认定,仍然应以是否违背“为被监护人利益”原则作为判断依据,且该原则为强制性规定,违背该原则,则抵押行为无效。综上所述,在金融借款合同纠纷案件中,未成年人的监护人,将登记在未成年人名下的房产为借款人进行抵押担保,必须符合《中华人民共和国民法通则》第18条第1款的规定,以“为被监护人利益”为原则,否则抵押行为无效。债权人在接受未成年人名下房产的抵押时,负有对该抵押行为的审慎审查义务,否则不构成主观善意,不享有抵押优先受偿权。在具体的个案中,应以事实为依据,以法律为准绳,在不违背法律禁止性规定的前提下,适当平衡保护未成年人财产利益与保护第三人交易安全。
[Abstract]:With the development of our society and the improvement of people's living standard, it has become the norm of Chinese society to buy a house. However, in recent years, many parents, for some reason, have chosen to register the houses purchased directly in the names of their minor children, resulting in minors being "bought" and "owners". "Doll owner" phenomenon appeared, and derived a lot of legal problems. Especially in the dispute of financial loan contract, legal problems such as whether the mortgage is effective or not are the most common legal problems, such as guardian (mainly referring to the parents), the house in the name of the minor children as the mortgage guarantee for the borrower. This issue is controversial in both judicial practice and theoretical research. Therefore, the study of relevant cases in judicial practice has certain practical significance. This paper analyzes the typical cases of financial loan contract disputes involving related legal issues, starting with the dispute focus of the cases, with the help of the relevant theories, legislation and judicial practice on the system of property protection for young adults, and so on. The focus of several disputes in the case is: whether the guardian can dispose of the house property in the name of the minor at will; whether the creditor can accept the mortgage set by the property in the name of the minor; and what is the validity of the mortgage on the property of the minor. Finally, the conclusion is drawn as follows: the guardian must take the principle of "for the interests of the ward" as the premise to dispose of the property in the name of the minor, and must not dispose of the property at will and damage the lawful rights and interests of the minor. Although the laws and regulations and the relevant judicial interpretations do not explicitly prohibit the guardian from mortgaging the house property in the name of the minor, the creditor must carefully examine whether the mortgage is in accordance with the principle of "for the benefit of the guardian" when accepting the mortgage of this kind. Otherwise, there is the potential risk that the mortgage is invalid by the court. The determination of the validity of non-adult real estate mortgage should still be based on whether to violate the principle of "the interests of the ward" as the basis of judgment, and the principle is mandatory, if the principle is violated, the mortgage act is invalid. To sum up, in a dispute over a financial loan contract, the guardian of a minor will mortgage the property registered in the name of the minor for the borrower. It must conform to the provisions of Article 18, paragraph 1, of the General principles of Civil Law of the people's Republic of China, and take the principle of "for the benefit of the person under guardianship" as the principle, otherwise the act of mortgage is invalid. When the creditor accepts the mortgage of the house in the name of the minor, he has the duty to examine the mortgage carefully, otherwise, it does not constitute subjective goodwill and does not enjoy the preemptive right of payment of the mortgage. In the specific cases, we should take the facts as the basis and the law as the yardstick, under the premise of not violating the prohibition of law, we should properly balance the protection of minors' property interests with the protection of the third party's transaction security.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】