普通动产抵押权人和第三人的权利冲突与平衡
发布时间：2018-10-24 20:17
【摘要】：随着经济的发展和企业融资的需求,以动产设定的以不转移占有为特征的动产抵押在实践中的运用越来越广泛。然而,由于制度本身、法律规定以及历史继承等问题,使得动产抵押在使用过程中存在不足并引发了各种纠纷。在审判实践中,抵押物受让人、抵押物上的其他担保物权人都可能与抵押权人的权利发生冲突,即所谓的动产抵押权人与第三人间的矛盾。本文围绕如何解决此类矛盾的主题,梳理相关争议与现有规则,提出相应的建议。本文第一部分以司法实践中遇到的两个真实案例,引出动产抵押权人与第三人之间的权利会发生冲突以及如何解决此类冲突的疑问。第二部分首先从梳理动产抵押权人与第三人权利冲突的规则入手,着重探析了登记对抗规则的内涵,将第三人的范围限制在对抵押物取得物权或者物权利益的物上第三人。然后,微观审视动产抵押权人与其他各类物上第三人的权利冲突情况,对动产抵押权人与所有权人、质权人、抵押权人、留置权人、承租人及借用人之间的权利优先顺位问题一一进行分析,并进一步发现尚存争议的问题。本文第三部分,则针对前文的分析,揭示动产抵押权人与第三人利益冲突的本质在于动产抵押公示方式的不足,从而发现动产抵押公示效力的缺陷,提出动产抵押权登记公示的范围仅及于与抵押人产生直接交易的第三人,对动产抵押登记的公信力应依据抵押物的价值及第三人的注意义务不同进行灵活裁量。本文第四部分对各国现有法律规定的各项制度以及学者建议的优点与缺陷进行分析。本文最后一部分是在上文分析的基础上,就解决动产抵押权人与第三人权利冲突所提出的建议,主要是:完善登记制度,坚持登记对抗主义,取消对抵押人处分权的限制,以肯定动产抵押追及效力为主,对追及范围进行限制。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the demand of enterprise financing, chattel mortgage, which is characterized by non-transfer possession, is more and more widely used in practice. However, due to the system itself, legal provisions and historical inheritance, there are deficiencies in the use of chattel mortgage and lead to various disputes. In the trial practice, the transferee of the mortgagee and other security interests on the mortgage may conflict with the rights of the mortgagee, that is, the contradiction between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party. This paper puts forward some suggestions on how to solve this kind of contradiction, combing relevant disputes and existing rules. In the first part of this paper, the author uses two real cases in judicial practice to draw the question that the rights between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party will conflict and how to solve this kind of conflict. The second part begins with combing the rules of the conflict between the mortgagee and the third party, focusing on the connotation of the registration countermeasure rule, and limiting the scope of the third party to the third party who obtains the real right or the real right benefit to the mortgage. Then, it examines the conflict of rights between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party in other kinds of things, and the mortgagee and owner, the mortgagee, the lien, the mortgagee, the mortgagee and the lien. The priority of rights between the lessee and the borrower is analyzed one by one, and the remaining controversial issues are further found. The third part of this paper, according to the above analysis, reveals that the essence of the interest conflict between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party lies in the deficiency of the way of publicizing the chattel mortgage, so as to find the defects of the effectiveness of the publicity of chattel mortgage. This paper puts forward that the scope of the registration of movable property mortgage is limited to the third party who has direct transaction with the mortgagor. The credibility of the registration of movable property mortgage should be flexible according to the value of the mortgage and the third party's duty of care. The fourth part of this paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the existing laws and regulations of various countries as well as the advantages and disadvantages of scholars' suggestions. The last part of this paper is on the basis of the above analysis, to solve the conflict between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party's rights, mainly: perfect the registration system, insist on the registration antagonism, cancel the restriction on the mortgagor's right of disposition. To affirm the chattels mortgage and the effectiveness of the main, to pursue and limit the scope.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2
本文编号：2292440
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the demand of enterprise financing, chattel mortgage, which is characterized by non-transfer possession, is more and more widely used in practice. However, due to the system itself, legal provisions and historical inheritance, there are deficiencies in the use of chattel mortgage and lead to various disputes. In the trial practice, the transferee of the mortgagee and other security interests on the mortgage may conflict with the rights of the mortgagee, that is, the contradiction between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party. This paper puts forward some suggestions on how to solve this kind of contradiction, combing relevant disputes and existing rules. In the first part of this paper, the author uses two real cases in judicial practice to draw the question that the rights between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party will conflict and how to solve this kind of conflict. The second part begins with combing the rules of the conflict between the mortgagee and the third party, focusing on the connotation of the registration countermeasure rule, and limiting the scope of the third party to the third party who obtains the real right or the real right benefit to the mortgage. Then, it examines the conflict of rights between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party in other kinds of things, and the mortgagee and owner, the mortgagee, the lien, the mortgagee, the mortgagee and the lien. The priority of rights between the lessee and the borrower is analyzed one by one, and the remaining controversial issues are further found. The third part of this paper, according to the above analysis, reveals that the essence of the interest conflict between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party lies in the deficiency of the way of publicizing the chattel mortgage, so as to find the defects of the effectiveness of the publicity of chattel mortgage. This paper puts forward that the scope of the registration of movable property mortgage is limited to the third party who has direct transaction with the mortgagor. The credibility of the registration of movable property mortgage should be flexible according to the value of the mortgage and the third party's duty of care. The fourth part of this paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the existing laws and regulations of various countries as well as the advantages and disadvantages of scholars' suggestions. The last part of this paper is on the basis of the above analysis, to solve the conflict between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party's rights, mainly: perfect the registration system, insist on the registration antagonism, cancel the restriction on the mortgagor's right of disposition. To affirm the chattels mortgage and the effectiveness of the main, to pursue and limit the scope.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.2
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 龙俊;;动产抵押对抗规则研究[J];法学家;2016年03期
2 薛启明;;中国法语境下的动产让与担保:体系定位与功能反思[J];法学论坛;2016年02期
3 高圣平;;动产抵押登记的法理——以《动产抵押登记办法》的修改为中心[J];法学;2016年02期
4 黄金龙;郑和园;孟新悦;;动产抵押制度的再思考——以动产抵押的适用范围与登记制度为中心[J];萍乡学院学报;2015年05期
5 任文俊;;浅议我国抵押权制度存在的不足[J];学理论;2015年05期
6 翟云岭;刘耀东;;论抵押涤除权制度——以《物权法》第191条第2款的解释为中心[J];法治研究;2014年09期
7 王洪亮;;动产抵押登记效力规则的独立性解析[J];法学;2009年11期
8 董学立;;动产抵押制度不合理吗?——兼与方金华、林旭霞商榷[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2009年04期
9 高圣平;;登记对抗主义之下的动产抵押登记制度——兼及《企业动产抵押物登记管理办法》的修改[J];法学家;2007年06期
10 梁上上,贝金欣;抵押物转让中的利益衡量与制度设计[J];法学研究;2005年04期
，本文编号：2292440
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2292440.html
