特殊动产一物数卖的所有权归属研究

发布时间：2018-07-02 11:53

本文选题：特殊动产 + 一物数卖　；参考：《西南政法大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着特殊动产一物数卖现象的不断增加,标的物的所有权归属、交易安全的维护、以及规制该现象时法理与制度的衔接等问题,逐渐变得愈演愈烈。我国现行立法及司法解释对特殊动产一物数卖问题有相关规定,但是不明确并且争议不断。因此,本文将紧紧围绕特殊动产一物数卖的所有权归属这一中心问题,指出特殊动产物权变动模式的立法现状及争议,分析该争议的焦点并得出本文对该问题的见解;在此前提下,对《最高人民法院关于审理买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》(以下简称《买卖合同解释》)第10条的规定进行解读和评析,最后以类型化的方式对特殊动产一物数卖的所有权归属进行归类并得出各情形下的探索性结论。引言部分除外,文章包括以下五部分。第一部分首先就我国特殊动产物权变动模式的立法现状进行了分析,指出《物权法》第24条的规定不明确,引起了学界的争议;然后,对各种不同观点进行了罗列,分析了其实质含义,并对这些观点进行了概括总结。第二部分就理论争议的本质问题进行了正面剖析,认为特殊动产一物数卖的所有权归属问题症结在于:“交付”与“登记”效力关系上的分歧,而学者们得出不同观点的实质就在于此。在此认识下,笔者就现行法下我国特殊动产物权变动的应然模式进行了分析论证,通过文义、体系、目的解释等方法,得出了我国特殊动产物权变动模式应当是“交付生效、登记对抗”的模式;并对该模式下,登记与交付的效力进行了解释说明,同时阐明了“未经登记,不得对抗善意第三人”的立法本意。第三部分就《买卖合同解释》第10条进行了解读,认为最高人民法院在制定该条规定时,虽然创设了一套履行顺序规则体系,但是该规则体系下的“依交付、登记、合同成立在先者的顺序依次受到优先保护,特别是在交付与登记发生冲突时,以交付为准。”的履行顺序,过于注重“基于诚实信用原则,否定出卖人在一物数卖情形中的自主选择权”的目的,忽视了买受人的利益保护。笔者对该条4项内容逐一加以评析,指出了其与现行立法的诸多矛盾之处。第四部分在前文的基础上,仅仅围绕“交付”与“登记”问题对特殊动产一物数卖的所有权归属以提取代表性类型的方式,对其进行了类型化分析,并得出了各自情形下关于所有权归属的探索性结论,以期为该问题的解决提供不同的尝试。第五部分是结语,该部分重申了特殊动产一物数卖所有权归属这一难题的症结所在,提出了对《物权法》第24条以及《买卖合同解释》第10条的完善建议,总结了本文解决特殊动产一物数卖所有权归属问题的思路,最后提出了对该问题解决方案的探索性构想。
[Abstract]:With the increasing of the phenomenon of the sale of special movable property, the ownership of the subject matter, the maintenance of transaction security, and the connection between legal theory and system when regulating the phenomenon, it becomes more and more serious. The current legislation and judicial interpretation of our country have related regulations on the sale of special movable property, but they are not clear and controversial. Therefore, this paper will focus on the central issue of ownership of special movable property, point out the legislative status and disputes of the mode of real right change of special movable property, analyze the focus of the dispute and draw the opinion of this paper. On this premise, the article 10 of the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the legal issues applicable to the trial of disputes over contracts of sale and purchase (hereinafter referred to as "the interpretation of the contract of purchase and sale") is interpreted and evaluated. Finally, it classifies the ownership of the sale of special movable property and draws the exploratory conclusion in each case. Except the introduction part, the article includes the following five parts. In the first part, the author analyzes the legislative situation of the mode of real right change of special movable property in our country, and points out that the stipulation of Article 24 of Real right Law is not clear, which has aroused the controversy in academic circles. This paper analyzes its essential meaning and summarizes these viewpoints. The second part has carried on the positive analysis to the theory dispute essential question, believed that the special movable property one thing sale ownership question crux lies in: "delivery" and "the registration" the validity relation difference, This is where scholars come up with different views. Under this understanding, the author analyzes and demonstrates the ought mode of the change of real right of special movable property in our country under the current law. By means of text meaning, system, purpose explanation and so on, the author concludes that the mode of change of real right of special movable property in our country should be "delivered to take effect". In this model, the effectiveness of registration and delivery is explained, and the legislative intent of "without registration against bona fide third parties" is clarified. The third part interprets Article 10 of the contract of Sale and purchase, and holds that when the Supreme people's Court formulates this provision, it creates a system of performance order rules, but under the system of rules, "according to delivery and registration," Priority is given to the order in which the contract is established, especially in the event of a conflict between delivery and registration. " The order of performance pays too much attention to the purpose of negating the seller's right of free choice in the case of one sale based on the principle of good faith and neglecting the protection of the buyer's interests. The author comments on the four items and points out many contradictions between them and the current legislation. The fourth part, on the basis of the above, only analyzes the ownership of the special movable property in order to extract the representative types around the issues of "delivery" and "registration". Finally, the author draws the exploratory conclusion about ownership attribution in their respective situations, in order to offer different attempts to solve the problem. The fifth part is the conclusion, which restates the crux of the problem of ownership of special movable property, and puts forward some suggestions on the perfection of Article 24 of the property Law and Article 10 of the contract of Sale and purchase. This paper summarizes the idea of solving the problem of ownership of the number of sale of special movable property in this paper, and finally puts forward the tentative idea of solving the problem.
【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;D923.6

【相似文献】