赃物善意取得问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-04 04:26

本文选题：善意取得 + 赃物　；参考：《郑州大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：善意取得是随着现代社会经济的快速发展,顺应世界民商法日益重视保护物的动态安全之发展趋势,在世界范围内逐步发展起来的一项重要民法制度,是物权制度中的重要内容。通说认为,善意取得制度源于日耳曼法的“以手护手”原则,随着市场经济对交易安全与迅捷的要求而日益发展成熟。该制度强调的是第三人通过法律行为对他人财产善意占有后物的权利归属问题。在保护善意第三人利益,维护交易安全与秩序,促进物的有效利用,增加社会财富等方面意义重大。在我国,善意取得制度经历了由长期以来的仅是理论和司法实践的承认,到2007年《物权法》用专门条款进行规定,实现了善意取得制度的立法化。然而,理论及实务界在欣喜之余也感到些许遗憾：《物权法》规定了善意取得的构成要件,规定了适用善意取得后原权利人权益救济的途径,甚至明确了遗失物进入交易的处理方式,却未将类似的赃物善意取得这一问题纳入视野范围,不能不说是当前我们善意取得制度的一个缺陷。而该问题的明确对于更好地保护所有权以及充分发挥物的经济效用,甚至是整个社会主义市场经济的建设都意义匪浅。 “赃物”,主要是刑法学上的一个术语,是一个程序性概念。就其物理属性和商品属性而言,与一般商品并无本质区别；占有具有公示公信力,交易者据此而为交易,显属有效的法律行为。如果完全否定赃物适用善意取得,则可能造成善意交易人“财物两空”,这显然有悖法律的公平理念,更破坏了市场交易秩序。故本文在对善意取得制度的内涵、实质、理论基础等基本问题进行梳理的基础上,试图通过对赃物进行民法上的分析,对赃物在交易中的物权归属进行比较法考察,对赃物适用善意取得的正当性进行论证,进而提出我国赃物善意取得问题的解决思路——赃物原则上不适用善意取得,原权利人在一定期限内享有对物的回复请求权,但是超过该期间则请求权消灭,发生受让人善意取得该物的后果。另外,通过确立“公开市场”原则来对这种无偿回复进行限制,以保护公众对公开合法交易的信赖。即第三人若通过拍卖、公开市场或从经营同类商品的商人处购得的物,原权利人行使回复请求权时,必须支付相应的对价。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of modern society and economy, the acquisition of bona fide is an important civil law system developed step by step in the world, conforming to the development trend of the world civil and commercial law paying more and more attention to the dynamic security of protected objects. It is an important content in real right system. It is believed that the system of bona fide acquisition originates from the principle of "protecting hands by hand" of Germanic law, and is maturing day by day with the demand of market economy for transaction security and quickness. The system emphasizes the ownership of the right of the third party to possess the property of others in good faith through legal acts. It is of great significance in protecting the interests of bona fide third parties, maintaining the security and order of transactions, promoting the effective use of goods and increasing social wealth. In our country, the system of bona fide acquisition has experienced the recognition of only theory and judicial practice for a long time, and in 2007, it was stipulated by special clauses, which realized the legalization of the system of bona fide acquisition. However, the theoretical and practical circles also feel some regret in addition to their joy: the Real right Law stipulates the constitutive elements of bona fide acquisition and the way to apply the relief of the rights and interests of the original right holder after the bona fide acquisition. Even the way to deal with the entry of lost property into the transaction has been clarified, but the problem of bona fide acquisition of similar stolen goods has not been brought into the scope of vision, which cannot be said to be a defect of our current system of bona fide acquisition. The clarity of this problem is of great significance to the better protection of ownership and the full play of the economic utility of property, and even the construction of the whole socialist market economy. Stolen goods, mainly a term in criminal law, is a procedural concept. As far as its physical attributes and commodity properties are concerned, there is no essential difference between them and general commodities; possession has the public credibility, and the traders trade accordingly, which is an effective legal act. If we completely deny that the stolen goods should be obtained in good faith, it may cause the bona fide traders to be "empty of property", which is obviously contrary to the fair idea of the law and destroys the order of market transactions. On the basis of combing the connotation, essence and theoretical basis of bona fide acquisition system, this paper attempts to make a comparative study on the ownership of stolen goods in the transaction through the analysis of the civil law. The legitimacy of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods is demonstrated, and the solution to the problem of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods in China is put forward. The original obligee has the right to reply to the stolen goods within a certain period of time. But beyond that period, the right of claim is extinguished and the result of the transferee acquiring the thing in good faith. In addition, this free response is restricted by establishing the "open market" principle to protect public trust in open and legitimate transactions. That is, if the third party through auction, open market or from the business of similar commodities from the purchase of things, the original right to exercise the right to respond to the claim, must pay the corresponding consideration.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D923.2

【引证文献】