“限购”政策下借名买房法律问题研究
发布时间：2018-12-29 09:16
【摘要】：随着限购政策的推进,实践中借名购房争议的案件涌现。借名购房关系区别于借款买房关系、委托买房关系,其认定需具备借名买房合同、实际出资人、房屋居住状况、房产证持有状况等综合因素认定。认定为借名购房关系,借名人基于合同的转移登记请求权是否能得到支持,还需要进一步认定合同的效力。借名人或出名人能否确认物权或申请物权保护,除认定合同效力外,还需考虑事实物权与法律物权的关系,考虑我国物权的登记制度。本文主要通过案例分析、法理分析、法律后果分析等,认为判定借名购买商品房的合同是否违反公共利益应分情况讨论,不应一概而论。在合同有效前提下,在出名人基于物权请求返还占有时,法院应根据借名人才系房屋真实权利人,而不予支持出名人请求。在借名人请求确认所有权时,法院也不应直接判定该房屋产权归借名人所有,借名人并不为房屋真实权利人,应释明借名人另行起诉房屋转移登记的要求。
[Abstract]:With the promotion of the purchase restriction policy, the practice of borrowing name purchase dispute cases emerged. The relationship between borrowing and buying a house is different from the relationship of borrowing and buying a house, and the relationship of entrusting a house should be determined by comprehensive factors, such as the contract of borrowing a house, the actual investor, the living condition of a house, the holding condition of a real estate certificate, and so on. It is necessary to confirm the validity of the contract if the claim for transfer registration based on the contract can be supported or not. In order to confirm real right or apply for real right protection, we should consider the relationship between factual real right and legal real right, and the registration system of real right in our country. This article mainly through the case analysis, the legal theory analysis, the legal consequence analysis and so on, thinks that the judgment to borrow the name purchase the commercial house contract whether violates the public interest to be discussed, should not generalize. On the premise that the contract is valid, the court should not support the claim of the celebrity according to the fact that the celebrity is the real owner of the house, when the celebrity claims to return possession on the basis of the property right. When requesting confirmation of ownership by celebrity, the court should not directly decide that the property right of the house is owned by the borrowed celebrity, and that the celebrity is not the real owner of the house, and should explain the request of the celebrity to sue separately for the transfer registration of the house.
【学位授予单位】：广东外语外贸大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6
本文编号：2394640
[Abstract]:With the promotion of the purchase restriction policy, the practice of borrowing name purchase dispute cases emerged. The relationship between borrowing and buying a house is different from the relationship of borrowing and buying a house, and the relationship of entrusting a house should be determined by comprehensive factors, such as the contract of borrowing a house, the actual investor, the living condition of a house, the holding condition of a real estate certificate, and so on. It is necessary to confirm the validity of the contract if the claim for transfer registration based on the contract can be supported or not. In order to confirm real right or apply for real right protection, we should consider the relationship between factual real right and legal real right, and the registration system of real right in our country. This article mainly through the case analysis, the legal theory analysis, the legal consequence analysis and so on, thinks that the judgment to borrow the name purchase the commercial house contract whether violates the public interest to be discussed, should not generalize. On the premise that the contract is valid, the court should not support the claim of the celebrity according to the fact that the celebrity is the real owner of the house, when the celebrity claims to return possession on the basis of the property right. When requesting confirmation of ownership by celebrity, the court should not directly decide that the property right of the house is owned by the borrowed celebrity, and that the celebrity is not the real owner of the house, and should explain the request of the celebrity to sue separately for the transfer registration of the house.
【学位授予单位】：广东外语外贸大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 王利明;;构建统一的不动产物权公示制度——评《不动产登记暂行条例(征求意见稿)》[J];政治与法律;2014年12期
2 赵秀梅;;借名登记合同中的法律问题[J];国家检察官学院学报;2014年05期
3 马强;;借名购房案件所涉问题之研究——以法院裁判的案件为中心[J];政治与法律;2014年07期
4 杨兴培;周爱萍;;擅自出售登记于自己名下他人房产的行为定性[J];法治研究;2014年04期
5 冉克平;;论借名实施法律行为的效果[J];法学;2014年02期
6 林诚二;;不动产物权变动登记之实与虚——以我国台湾地区借名登记契约之相关问题为说明[J];北方法学;2014年01期
7 王逸轩;;限购令下借名购房行为的性质——两大法系下代理制度的视角[J];法制博览(中旬刊);2013年10期
8 周峰;李兴;;隐名购房行为的法律性质认定与执法对策研究[J];法律适用;2012年08期
9 蒋光辉;;借名购买经济适用房之归属[J];人民司法;2012年15期
10 李德通;;规避限购令之借名购房行为的性质与效力探讨[J];法治研究;2012年04期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 陈益凤;借名购房纠纷案件的法律适用研究[D];浙江大学;2013年
2 张丽燕;房产借名登记及其法律问题研究[D];华东政法大学;2011年
，本文编号：2394640
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2394640.html
