占有保护请求权制度研究
发布时间：2018-07-20 09:02
【摘要】：传统意义上的占有保护请求权包括排除妨害、消除危险和返还占有物,以上三项请求权亦可称之为"狭义上的占有保护请求权"。我国《物权法》在传统占有保护请求权的基础上将损害赔偿也作为占有保护的一项独立请求权,有混淆物权请求权和债权请求权之嫌,值得商榷。占有保护请求权和本权请求权在法律效果上有相同之处,但在诸多方面又存在差异,两者相互补充又相互独立——本权请求权基于确定的权利而产生,占有保护请求权仅依据占有事实而存在;本权请求权的立法目的在于终局性解决争议,占有保护请求权是对现有财产秩序的维护,具有临时性;占有保护请求权的行使不以相对人过错为必要,本权请求权以过错责任为原则,无过错责任为补充;本权请求权的行使需证明其有合法的实体权利,而占有保护请求权人只需证明其占有事实即可,证明责任较轻;本权请求权适用诉讼时效,占有保护请求权适用除斥期间。在现有大陆法系国家和地区大多有关于占有制度的较为详尽的实体和程序规定来禁止私力救济,同时又为避免冗长的诉讼程序有损占有保护的及时性,给予占有之诉独立地位以区别于本权诉讼,其中以法国、日本的占有诉讼制度最为典型。在我国,占有保护请求权和本权请求权在同一案件中的冲突日益显著,在占有之诉中以本权判决的案例比比皆是,导致占有之诉实质上被架空。我国《物权法》虽将占有列为单独一编,但总计五个条文的内容却显得单薄,导致在实务中运用不畅。在我国法的程序法方面,建议参考法国、日本的占有诉讼制度,在关于占有之诉的法律规定中禁止本权抗辩,若当事人要提出本权抗辩只得另行起诉或反诉,以实现其快速及时、非终局性解决争议的立法价值;或参考我国台湾地区占有之诉全部按"简易程序"处理的模式;或参考德国采取假处分程序等。在我国法的实体法方面,建议进一步完善占有保护请求权法律体系,合理设置占有的事实和权利推定规则,明确有权占有人与无权占有人的权利义务,确立先占、取得时效、善意取得等关联制度。
[Abstract]:The traditional claim for possession protection includes the elimination of obstruction, the elimination of danger and the return of possession. The above three claims can also be called "the narrow claim for possession protection". On the basis of the traditional right of claim for the protection of possession, our country's property Law regards the compensation for damages as an independent claim for the protection of possession, which confuses the claim of real right with the right of claim of creditor's rights, which is open to question. There are similarities in the legal effect between the claim for protection of possession and the claim for this right, but there are differences in many aspects. They complement each other and are independent of each other. The legislative purpose of the claim is to settle the dispute at the end, the claim of possession is the maintenance of the existing property order, and it is temporary. The exercise of the claim for possession protection is not necessary for the fault of the relative party, the principle of the claim is fault liability, and the liability for no fault is supplementary; the exercise of the claim right must prove that it has a legal substantive right, However, the claimant only needs to prove the fact of possession, and the burden of proof is relatively light; the right of claim is subject to the limitation of action, and the claim of possession and protection is applicable during the period of exclusion. In most of the existing civil law countries and regions, there are more detailed substantive and procedural provisions on the possession system to prohibit private remedies, while at the same time to avoid lengthy proceedings that undermine the timeliness of the protection of possession, The independent status of possession action is different from that of this right litigation, among which France and Japan are the most typical. In our country, the conflict between the claim for protection of possession and the right of claim is becoming more and more obvious in the same case. Although the possession is listed as a separate part, the contents of the five articles in total appear to be weak, which leads to the difficulty of application in practice. With regard to the procedural law of our country, it is suggested to refer to the possession litigation system of France and Japan, and to prohibit the right of defense in the legal provisions concerning the action of possession, if the parties have to sue separately or counterclaim if they want to raise the defense of this right. In order to realize the legislative value of speedy and timely, non-final dispute settlement, or to refer to the mode of "summary procedure" for all cases of possession in Taiwan, or to refer to the fake disposition procedure adopted by Germany, etc. In the aspect of substantive law of our country, it is suggested that the legal system of claim for the protection of possession should be further improved, the facts of possession and the rules of presumption of rights should be set up reasonably, the rights and obligations of the right possessor and the unauthorized possessor should be clearly defined, the preoccupation should be established, and the prescription of limitation should be obtained. Bona fide acquisition and other related systems.
【学位授予单位】：上海社会科学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2
[Abstract]:The traditional claim for possession protection includes the elimination of obstruction, the elimination of danger and the return of possession. The above three claims can also be called "the narrow claim for possession protection". On the basis of the traditional right of claim for the protection of possession, our country's property Law regards the compensation for damages as an independent claim for the protection of possession, which confuses the claim of real right with the right of claim of creditor's rights, which is open to question. There are similarities in the legal effect between the claim for protection of possession and the claim for this right, but there are differences in many aspects. They complement each other and are independent of each other. The legislative purpose of the claim is to settle the dispute at the end, the claim of possession is the maintenance of the existing property order, and it is temporary. The exercise of the claim for possession protection is not necessary for the fault of the relative party, the principle of the claim is fault liability, and the liability for no fault is supplementary; the exercise of the claim right must prove that it has a legal substantive right, However, the claimant only needs to prove the fact of possession, and the burden of proof is relatively light; the right of claim is subject to the limitation of action, and the claim of possession and protection is applicable during the period of exclusion. In most of the existing civil law countries and regions, there are more detailed substantive and procedural provisions on the possession system to prohibit private remedies, while at the same time to avoid lengthy proceedings that undermine the timeliness of the protection of possession, The independent status of possession action is different from that of this right litigation, among which France and Japan are the most typical. In our country, the conflict between the claim for protection of possession and the right of claim is becoming more and more obvious in the same case. Although the possession is listed as a separate part, the contents of the five articles in total appear to be weak, which leads to the difficulty of application in practice. With regard to the procedural law of our country, it is suggested to refer to the possession litigation system of France and Japan, and to prohibit the right of defense in the legal provisions concerning the action of possession, if the parties have to sue separately or counterclaim if they want to raise the defense of this right. In order to realize the legislative value of speedy and timely, non-final dispute settlement, or to refer to the mode of "summary procedure" for all cases of possession in Taiwan, or to refer to the fake disposition procedure adopted by Germany, etc. In the aspect of substantive law of our country, it is suggested that the legal system of claim for the protection of possession should be further improved, the facts of possession and the rules of presumption of rights should be set up reasonably, the rights and obligations of the right possessor and the unauthorized possessor should be clearly defined, the preoccupation should be established, and the prescription of limitation should be obtained. Bona fide acquisition and other related systems.
【学位授予单位】：上海社会科学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 钱凯;;论我国占有保护请求权体系之构建[J];南阳理工学院学报;2009年05期
2 吴慧琼;;共建配套用房的占有保护请求权[J];人民司法;2013年16期
3 李宁;;浅议我国占有保护请求权的完善[J];知识经济;2014年06期
4 蒋岩岩;张娟;;论占有保护请求权之功能——兼评物权法草案第296条[J];甘肃农业;2006年02期
5 吴文嫔;;论占有保护请求权的性质[J];国家检察官学院学报;2007年03期
6 赵健;;物权法中占有保护请求权的理解[J];山东审判;2007年06期
7 张喻忻;陈永祥;;统一救济模式下的侵权责任法的适用——以占有保护请求权为视角[J];学术论坛;2010年04期
8 吴慧琼;;公共设施使用权人的占有保护请求权[J];法制资讯;2014年06期
9 白爱敏;;占有保护制度探析[J];法制与社会;2011年03期
10 李志忠;;试论占有的物权法保护[J];甘肃高师学报;2010年01期
相关重要报纸文章 前2条
1 上海市第一中级人民法院 案例编写人 吴慧琼;公共设施使用权人的占有保护请求权[N];法制日报;2012年
2 李晓平 张海静;违章建筑的占有人能否享有占有保护请求权[N];江苏法制报;2010年
相关硕士学位论文 前8条
1 赵航;占有保护请求权研究[D];吉林大学;2007年
2 林R，
本文编号：2133008
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2133008.html
