冒名处分不动产行为的法律分析
发布时间：2019-07-09 15:46
【摘要】：冒名处分不动产行为指的是,无处分权人冒充不动产所有权人的名义处分他人财产,在交易的过程中冒名人向相对人表示自己就是不动产权属证书上的权利人本人,交易相对方相信冒名人为有权处分人向其支付了对价并且双方进行了不动产权属变更登记。冒名处分不动产不同于传统意义上的无权代理,因为在无权代理中,无代理权人是为了被代理人的利益而以其名义实施法律行为,并且希望被代理人承受相应的法律效果,交易相对方也明确知晓本人的存在。但是在冒名处分不动产的行为中,冒名人是为了自己的利益而冒充他人名义并没有为其缔结法律关系的意图,而且交易相对方并不知道不动产真正权利人的存在。冒名处分不动产也与传统意义上的无权处分有差别,在无权处分中,无处分权人通常是以自己的名义实施处分行为。那么冒名处分不动产行为的法律后果如何,该不动产最终归属于原所有权人还是善意第三人?善意第三人是否能够适用表见代理制度或者善意取得制度?这是目前理论界和司法实践中所探讨的主要问题,存在较大争议。对于冒名处分不动产行为的法律后果,学界主要的观点包括:冒名处分不动产不适用表见代理制度,也不适用善意取得制度,不动产原所有权人可以请求善意第三人返还,善意第三人只能要求冒名人返还价款并承担赔偿责任;冒名处分不动产不能适用表见代理制度,但是符合善意取得的构成要件可以适用善意取得制度,善意第三人能够取得不动产上的物权,原所有权人只能要求冒名人承担赔偿责任;冒名处分不动产不符合善意取得的构成要件,不能适用善意取得制度,但是可以类推适用表见代理制度,善意第三人能够取得不动产上的物权,原所有权人只能向冒名人请求赔偿。笔者认为,在冒名处分不动产行为中,不动产原所有权人和交易第三人主观上通常都没有过错或者重大过失,在判断不动产所有权归属时,实际上是在原所有权人的利益和善意第三人利益之间进行取舍,民法的主要价值取向应当是以保护所有权的静态财产安全为主,而以保护交易安全的动态财产安全为例外,所以如果要保护善意第三人的利益必须要有充分的法律依据。冒名处分不动产行为的性质实际上是无权处分,而不是无权代理,因此并没有表见代理适用的余地,而且冒名处分不动产行为的主要特征与表见代理相差很大,如果对此进行类推适用,任意扩大表见代理适用范围,似乎与民法的基本价值取向不符。不动产善意取得制度的基础在于登记的公信力,而在冒名处分不动产行为中并没有登记错误的情况,善意第三人是因为相信冒名人的身份从而产生了信赖利益,这种信赖利益并不属于不动产登记公信力保护的范围,不能适用不动产善意取得制度。笔者认为冒名处分不动产行为在一般情况下不能适用表见代理制度,也不能适用善意取得制度,该不动产归属于其真正权利人即不动产原所有权人。但是也不排除一些特殊情况下,不动产原所有权对于冒名处分不动产行为的发生有过错或者重大过失,如果此时仍然认定该不动产归属于原所有权人似乎有失公平。对于此类情况,笔者建议在未来的民法典总则部分设立一项一般规定,来调节此类没有法律规范的行为的法律后果,保障善意第三人的合法权益。鉴于当前我国对此还没有规定,可类推适用表见代理制度来保护善意第三人利益。本文主要探讨的是在第三人主观善意时,是否对其信赖利益进行保护,即冒名处分不动产中不动产物权的最终归属以及相应的赔偿责任等。首先,本文从冒名处分不动产的上位概念冒名行为入手进行逐步细化,分析了冒名处分不动产行为的含义、特征以及构成要件等,为下文的论证做铺垫。然后,笔者总结了理论界对于该问题的几种具有代表性的观点,包括表见代理说、善意取得说等,并就这些主流观点的合理性进行了分析同时提出了质疑。最后笔者在综合比较学者们的各种观点并进行深入剖析思考后得出自己的拙见。本文拟从以下四章进行探讨。第一章是本文的基础部分,主要介绍冒名处分不动产行为的含义及其主要特征,同时将冒名处分不动产行为和相关概念进行区分,加强读者对冒名处分不动产行为的理解。同时笔者还总结了理论界对于冒名处分不动产行为的各种主流观点,引出了本文探讨的主要问题即冒名处分不动产的法律效果,为本文以后开展的论述奠定基础。第二章笔者针对主流观点之一的表见代理说进行了详细分析。首先阐述了表见代理说的理由,主要是从当事人主观意愿的角度展开,考虑的因素包括善意第三人的主观意愿、不动产原权利人事后的主观意愿以及冒名人的主观意愿。然后笔者提出了自己对该学说的质疑,认为冒名处分不动产不适用表见代理制度。第三章笔者主要围绕冒名处分不动产是否适用善意取得制度进行分析。首先阐述了适用善意取得制度的理由,主要从三个方面展开:冒名处分不动产行为符合我国《物权法》106条关于善意取得的构成要件;不动产公信力的范围包含善意第三人对不动产处分人身份的信任;民法对善意进行保护的立法精神。然后笔者提出了自己对该学说的质疑,认为冒名处分不动产不适用善意取得制度。第四章主要是笔者对于冒名处分不动产法律效果的看法。笔者首先分析了冒名处分不动产合同的效力,然后分析了冒名处分不动产中不动产物权的归属。笔者认为民法对于善意的保护不宜做过多的扩张性解释,应当严格遵循法律的规定,冒名处分不动产既不适用善意取得制度也不能类推适用表见代理制度,不动产物权属于原所有权人。同时笔者还提出了对于善意第三人的两点保护措施并就我国现行立法上存在的缺陷提出了自己的四点建议。
[Abstract]:The act of disposition of the real property refers to the disposition of the property of another person in the name of the owner of the real estate, and the person in the process of the transaction indicates that he is the right person in the title certificate of the real estate. The other party of the transaction believes that the impersonation person has the right to dispose the consideration to it and the two parties have registered the property ownership change. The real estate is different from the right agent in the traditional sense because, in the absence of the agent, the non-agent is in the name of the agent to carry out the legal act in the name of the agent, and it is desirable to be subject to the corresponding legal effect by the agent, The other party of the transaction is also clearly aware of the existence of the transaction. However, in the act of disposing of real property, the impersonator is a person who, for the sake of his own interests, imitates the name of others and does not have the intention to conclude a legal relationship for him, and the other party of the transaction does not know the existence of the real right of the real estate. It is also the difference between the disposition of the real property and the right to dispose of the real property in the traditional sense. In the absence of the right to dispose of the real property, the disposition of the real estate is usually carried out in the name of its own. How do the legal consequences of the real estate act, the real property finally attributable to the original owner or the bona fide third person? Will a bona fide third person be able to apply a proxy system or a bona fide acquisition system? This is the main problem in the field of theoretical and judicial practice, and there is a great deal of dispute. The main point of view of the academic circle is that the real estate is not applicable to the proxy system and the bona fide acquisition system is not applicable, and the original owner of the real estate can request the bona fide third person to return, In good faith, the third party can only request the impersonation person to return the price and bear the liability of compensation; if the real estate cannot be applied to the proxy system, it is in good faith to obtain the system in good faith, and the third party in good faith can obtain the real right on the real estate. The original owner can only ask the falsely-named person to bear the liability of compensation; the fake disposition of the real property does not accord with the constitutive requirements obtained in good faith, and the bona fide acquisition system can not be applied, but the application of the proxy system can be applied by analogy, and the bona fide third person can obtain the real right on the real estate, The original owner can only request compensation to the impersonator. In that author's opinion, in the real estate act of the real estate, the original owner of the real estate and the third person of the transaction usually have no fault or gross negligence, and when the ownership of the real estate is judged, it is in fact the trade-off between the interests of the original owner and the interests of the third party in good faith. The main value orientation of the civil law should be the static property security of the protection of the ownership, and the dynamic property security in order to protect the security of the transaction is the exception, so it is necessary to have a sufficient legal basis to protect the interests of the third party in good faith. The nature of the behavior of the real estate is not the right to dispose of, and is not the right to act, so there is no room for the application of the proxy, and the main characteristics of the real estate act are different from that of the table, and if so on, Any expansion of the scope of the proxy application appears to be in line with the basic value orientation of the civil law. The basis of the system of bona fide acquisition of the real property is the credibility of the registration, while in the case of the false disposition of the real property, there is no registration error, and the third party in good faith is because of the belief of the identity of the falsely-named person, thus creating a trust benefit, This trust benefit does not fall within the scope of the real estate registration credibility protection and cannot be applied to the bona fide acquisition system of the real property. The author thinks that the real property of the real estate can not be applied to the proxy system in the general situation, and the bona fide acquisition system can not be applied, and the real property belongs to the real right of the real estate. However, in some special circumstances, the original title of the real estate is at fault or gross negligence for the occurrence of the real estate act, and if it is still determined that the real property belongs to the original owner, it appears to be unfair. In such cases, the author suggests that a general provision should be set up in the general rules of the future civil code to regulate the legal consequences of such acts without legal norms and to guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of the third party in good faith. In that light of the fact that there is no provision for this in our country, the benefit of the third party in good will be protected by analogy with the application of the proxy system. This paper mainly discusses whether to protect the trust benefit of the third person, that is, the ultimate attribution of real property right in the real estate and the corresponding compensation liability. First of all, this article is to make a step-by-step refinement from the name of the upper-position concept of the real estate, and analyze the meaning, characteristics and components of the real estate act of the fake name, and lay the way for the following demonstration. Then, the author sums up some representative views on this question in the field of theory, including the representation of the proxy and the good faith, and makes an analysis of the rationality of these mainstream views. In the end, the author makes an in-depth analysis of the various views of the scholars and makes an in-depth analysis of the thinking, and draws a conclusion. This paper is to explore from the following four chapters. The first chapter is the basic part of this paper, mainly introduces the meaning and the main characteristics of the real estate act of the falsely-named disposition, and also distinguishes the real estate behavior and the related concepts, and strengthens the reader's understanding of the behavior of the real estate. At the same time, the author also sums up the various main points of the theory circle to dispose of the real estate behavior, and draws out the main problem discussed in this paper, that is, the legal effect of the first-name disposition of the real estate, and lays the foundation for the discussion that is carried out later in this article. In the second chapter, the author makes a detailed analysis on the representation of one of the main ideas. First of all, the reasons for the representation of the representation agent are described, mainly from the perspective of the subjective will of the parties, the factors that are considered include the subjective will of the third person in good faith, the subjective will of the real estate of the real estate and the subjective will of the first person. Then the author raises his own question about the theory, and thinks that the real estate is not applicable to the proxy system. In the third chapter, the author mainly analyzes whether the real estate is applicable to the bona fide acquisition system. First of all, the reasons for the application of bona fide acquisition system are described, mainly from three aspects: the behavior of the real estate is in accordance with the constitutive requirements of the property law of China's property law> 106, and the scope of the public trust of the real property includes the trust of the third person in good faith to the identity of the real estate disposing person; The legislative spirit of the protection of good faith by the civil law. Then the author raises his own question about the theory, and thinks that the real estate is not applicable to the system of good faith. The fourth chapter is the author's view of the legal effect of the real estate. The author first analyzed the validity of the real estate contract, and then analyzed the attribution of real property right in the real estate. In the author's opinion, the civil law should not do a lot of expansionary interpretation for the protection of good faith, and the law should be strictly followed. The real property right of the real estate is not applicable to the bona fide acquisition system or by analogy, and the real property right belongs to the original owner. At the same time, the author also put forward the two-point protection measures for the third party in good faith and put forward four suggestions on the defects existing in the current legislation in our country.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.2
本文编号：2512254
[Abstract]:The act of disposition of the real property refers to the disposition of the property of another person in the name of the owner of the real estate, and the person in the process of the transaction indicates that he is the right person in the title certificate of the real estate. The other party of the transaction believes that the impersonation person has the right to dispose the consideration to it and the two parties have registered the property ownership change. The real estate is different from the right agent in the traditional sense because, in the absence of the agent, the non-agent is in the name of the agent to carry out the legal act in the name of the agent, and it is desirable to be subject to the corresponding legal effect by the agent, The other party of the transaction is also clearly aware of the existence of the transaction. However, in the act of disposing of real property, the impersonator is a person who, for the sake of his own interests, imitates the name of others and does not have the intention to conclude a legal relationship for him, and the other party of the transaction does not know the existence of the real right of the real estate. It is also the difference between the disposition of the real property and the right to dispose of the real property in the traditional sense. In the absence of the right to dispose of the real property, the disposition of the real estate is usually carried out in the name of its own. How do the legal consequences of the real estate act, the real property finally attributable to the original owner or the bona fide third person? Will a bona fide third person be able to apply a proxy system or a bona fide acquisition system? This is the main problem in the field of theoretical and judicial practice, and there is a great deal of dispute. The main point of view of the academic circle is that the real estate is not applicable to the proxy system and the bona fide acquisition system is not applicable, and the original owner of the real estate can request the bona fide third person to return, In good faith, the third party can only request the impersonation person to return the price and bear the liability of compensation; if the real estate cannot be applied to the proxy system, it is in good faith to obtain the system in good faith, and the third party in good faith can obtain the real right on the real estate. The original owner can only ask the falsely-named person to bear the liability of compensation; the fake disposition of the real property does not accord with the constitutive requirements obtained in good faith, and the bona fide acquisition system can not be applied, but the application of the proxy system can be applied by analogy, and the bona fide third person can obtain the real right on the real estate, The original owner can only request compensation to the impersonator. In that author's opinion, in the real estate act of the real estate, the original owner of the real estate and the third person of the transaction usually have no fault or gross negligence, and when the ownership of the real estate is judged, it is in fact the trade-off between the interests of the original owner and the interests of the third party in good faith. The main value orientation of the civil law should be the static property security of the protection of the ownership, and the dynamic property security in order to protect the security of the transaction is the exception, so it is necessary to have a sufficient legal basis to protect the interests of the third party in good faith. The nature of the behavior of the real estate is not the right to dispose of, and is not the right to act, so there is no room for the application of the proxy, and the main characteristics of the real estate act are different from that of the table, and if so on, Any expansion of the scope of the proxy application appears to be in line with the basic value orientation of the civil law. The basis of the system of bona fide acquisition of the real property is the credibility of the registration, while in the case of the false disposition of the real property, there is no registration error, and the third party in good faith is because of the belief of the identity of the falsely-named person, thus creating a trust benefit, This trust benefit does not fall within the scope of the real estate registration credibility protection and cannot be applied to the bona fide acquisition system of the real property. The author thinks that the real property of the real estate can not be applied to the proxy system in the general situation, and the bona fide acquisition system can not be applied, and the real property belongs to the real right of the real estate. However, in some special circumstances, the original title of the real estate is at fault or gross negligence for the occurrence of the real estate act, and if it is still determined that the real property belongs to the original owner, it appears to be unfair. In such cases, the author suggests that a general provision should be set up in the general rules of the future civil code to regulate the legal consequences of such acts without legal norms and to guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of the third party in good faith. In that light of the fact that there is no provision for this in our country, the benefit of the third party in good will be protected by analogy with the application of the proxy system. This paper mainly discusses whether to protect the trust benefit of the third person, that is, the ultimate attribution of real property right in the real estate and the corresponding compensation liability. First of all, this article is to make a step-by-step refinement from the name of the upper-position concept of the real estate, and analyze the meaning, characteristics and components of the real estate act of the fake name, and lay the way for the following demonstration. Then, the author sums up some representative views on this question in the field of theory, including the representation of the proxy and the good faith, and makes an analysis of the rationality of these mainstream views. In the end, the author makes an in-depth analysis of the various views of the scholars and makes an in-depth analysis of the thinking, and draws a conclusion. This paper is to explore from the following four chapters. The first chapter is the basic part of this paper, mainly introduces the meaning and the main characteristics of the real estate act of the falsely-named disposition, and also distinguishes the real estate behavior and the related concepts, and strengthens the reader's understanding of the behavior of the real estate. At the same time, the author also sums up the various main points of the theory circle to dispose of the real estate behavior, and draws out the main problem discussed in this paper, that is, the legal effect of the first-name disposition of the real estate, and lays the foundation for the discussion that is carried out later in this article. In the second chapter, the author makes a detailed analysis on the representation of one of the main ideas. First of all, the reasons for the representation of the representation agent are described, mainly from the perspective of the subjective will of the parties, the factors that are considered include the subjective will of the third person in good faith, the subjective will of the real estate of the real estate and the subjective will of the first person. Then the author raises his own question about the theory, and thinks that the real estate is not applicable to the proxy system. In the third chapter, the author mainly analyzes whether the real estate is applicable to the bona fide acquisition system. First of all, the reasons for the application of bona fide acquisition system are described, mainly from three aspects: the behavior of the real estate is in accordance with the constitutive requirements of the property law of China's property law> 106, and the scope of the public trust of the real property includes the trust of the third person in good faith to the identity of the real estate disposing person; The legislative spirit of the protection of good faith by the civil law. Then the author raises his own question about the theory, and thinks that the real estate is not applicable to the system of good faith. The fourth chapter is the author's view of the legal effect of the real estate. The author first analyzed the validity of the real estate contract, and then analyzed the attribution of real property right in the real estate. In the author's opinion, the civil law should not do a lot of expansionary interpretation for the protection of good faith, and the law should be strictly followed. The real property right of the real estate is not applicable to the bona fide acquisition system or by analogy, and the real property right belongs to the original owner. At the same time, the author also put forward the two-point protection measures for the third party in good faith and put forward four suggestions on the defects existing in the current legislation in our country.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.2
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 房绍坤;;动产与不动产划分标准探究[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2006年02期
2 刘铁光;;动产和不动产划分标准的思考[J];贵州工业大学学报(社会科学版);2006年03期
3 王彦;刘建民;;我国未来不动产登记机关的合理选择[J];石家庄经济学院学报;2007年02期
4 孙玉凤;;论不动产登记机构的现状及未来走向[J];山东行政学院山东省经济管理干部学院学报;2007年04期
5 严世林;;不动产的概念及登记[J];中国律师;2007年11期
6 骆军;;地震背景下的不动产争议之法律应对[J];法律适用;2008年12期
7 梁亚荣;王崇敏;;不动产登记机构设置探析[J];法学论坛;2009年01期
8 何梓雍;;论动产与不动产的分类标准[J];法制与社会;2009年13期
9 季秀平;;论不动产登记机构的统一[J];淮阴师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版);2009年05期
10 向明;;不动产登记请求权研究[J];广西社会科学;2010年04期
相关会议论文 前10条
1 张迎涛;;不动产登记机构设置研究[A];财产权与行政法保护——中国法学会行政法学研究会2007年年会论文集[C];2007年
2 罗文燕;徐亮亮;;论对不动产登记行为的司法审查——兼评《中华人民共和国物权法》的有关规定[A];财产权与行政法保护——中国法学会行政法学研究会2007年年会论文集[C];2007年
3 韦文津;;不动产登记基本问题研究[A];规划·规范·规则——第六届中国律师论坛优秀论文集[C];2006年
4 王克稳;;我国不动产登记中的行政法问题[A];财产权与行政法保护——中国法学会行政法学研究会2007年年会论文集[C];2007年
5 唐玲莉;;论不动产登记纠纷中权利救济路径之选择[A];探索社会主义司法规律与完善民商事法律制度研究——全国法院第23届学术讨论会获奖论文集（下）[C];2011年
6 张磊;胡亮亮;;不动产登记机关登记错误赔偿机制研究[A];当代法学论坛（二○○九年第2辑）[C];2009年
7 邵晖;;试论不动产登记的法律效力[A];中国民商法实务论坛论文集[C];2002年
8 吕艳辉;;从《物权法》相关规定看不动产登记的服务功能[A];中国法学会行政法学研究会2008年年会论文集（下册）[C];2008年
9 王建;;大陆不动产登记制度研究[A];不动产开发与投资和不动产金融——2005年海峡两岸土地学术研讨会论文集[C];2005年
10 王士如;;不动产征收补偿比较研究[A];2009年政府法制研究[C];2009年
相关重要报纸文章 前10条
1 《法制日报》记者 杜晓 《法制日报》见习记者 张昊;不动产登记立法有助房产反腐法治化[N];法制日报;2013年
2 ;不动产统一登记意义远大于反腐[N];中国房地产报;2013年
3 冯海宁;正视不动产登记立法的难度[N];法制日报;2013年
4 早报记者 李云芳;明年上半年推不动产登记条例[N];东方早报;2013年
5 李龙;不动产统一登记要解决好隐私保护[N];广州日报;2013年
6 王利明;“不动产登记”应统一立法[N];人民代表报;2013年
7 司法部《中国司法》杂志总编、研究员 刘武俊;激活不动产登记反腐正能量[N];人民法院报;2013年
8 记者 王立彬;不动产登记条例预计明年6月底前出台[N];新华每日电讯;2013年
9 陈青伟;不动产统一登记制度有望年内“破冰”[N];云南法制报;2013年
10 特约评论员 杨遴杰;不要误读不动产统一登记[N];中国建设报;2013年
相关博士学位论文 前8条
1 范向阳;不动产执行制度研究[D];中国政法大学;2007年
2 王永亮;论不动产登记中的私权利保护[D];华东政法大学;2014年
3 毛和文;论英美法系的不动产按揭法律制度[D];对外经济贸易大学;2007年
4 王旭军;不动产登记司法审查标准研究[D];中国政法大学;2009年
5 李凤章;登记限度论[D];中国政法大学;2005年
6 陈弦;中国不动产税制改革研究[D];东北大学;2012年
7 马栩生;登记公信力研究[D];武汉大学;2005年
8 许瑛;法国营业资产法律制度研究[D];华东政法大学;2012年
相关硕士学位论文 前10条
1 李前伦;论动产与不动产划分的动因及标准[D];武汉大学;2005年
2 张建文;论我国不动产登记法制的现状与未来[D];西南政法大学;2003年
3 顾娟;我国不动产登记立法问题研究[D];北京交通大学;2008年
4 周长春;设立统一不动产登记机关研究[D];西南政法大学;2011年
5 乔羽;不动产登记中的一般程序及特别程序[D];中国社会科学院研究生院;2015年
6 陈豪彬;论不动产登记审查程序引入公证制度问题分析[D];中国社会科学院研究生院;2015年
7 苏进水;论不动产登记的基本原则[D];中国社会科学院研究生院;2015年
8 崔勋;韩国留置权制度研究[D];延边大学;2015年
9 李丽杰;因不动产登记机构登记错误赔偿责任研究[D];中国社会科学院研究生院;2015年
10 王庆;农村不动产统一登记原型系统研究[D];中国地质大学(北京);2015年
，本文编号：2512254
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2512254.html
