赃物善意取得制度研究

发布时间：2018-06-06 15:17

本文选题：赃物 + 物权　；参考：《吉林大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：善意取得制度由日耳曼法的“以手护手”原则演变而来，历经古代、中世纪、近代至现代的发展，今日已经成为保护交易安全的重要制度。在我国，善意取得制度在2007年施行的《物权法》中得到了承认，对遗失物是否使用善意取得也作出了明确的规定。但是在市场经济日趋发展的今天，市场中赃物因其本身的属性与一般商品并无区别，其作为市场流通物的一部分是不可否认的客观现实。故此产生了善意第三人因信赖而占有的公示公信力。如何保障此种情况下善意第三人的利益，是实际而迫切的需求。但是《物权法》对赃物是否适用善意取得制度做了回避处理，实务中对待赃物处理无所适从。在刑事案件中，犯罪嫌疑人常常将犯罪所得进行正常的市场交易或者抵偿其所欠正当债务，许多与刑事案件无关的第三人在不知情情况下购买或者接受了其犯罪所得，这就产生了现实的赃物善意取得的问题。鉴于此种情况，确立赃物善意取得制度无论从立法层面还是司法层面都是时事所需的。赃物的善意取得指的是，无处分权人占有的情况下，作为让与物的因违法所得的他人财物和因该项财物所产生的收益或变形体，被出让给第三人，如果第三人基于善意而取得该物，即使该让与物的性质为赃物，仍产生善意取得制度的法律效果，即善意第三人取得该物所有权，原所有权人不得对该物所有权进行追夺。目前各国对赃物善意取得制度主要采取三种立法模式：完全不适用的立法模式、完全适用的立法模式和限制肯定的立法模式。对国外立法的比较研究及对三种立法模式的分析，完全不适用的立法模式已经不适应现代化的市场交易，完全适用的立法模式将会以牺牲原权利人的利益来保护善意第三人的利益，也并不可取。而限制肯定的立法模式兼顾了物之所有权的动态安全和静态安全，同时从法律经济分析的角度出发，限制肯定的立法模式在赃物善意取得的法律关系中付出了较小的成本符合了效益最大化的原则，是完善我国赃物善意取得制度的最佳选择。从我国古代开始，我国在赃物是否适用善意取得的问题上就历尽曲折，随着社会的发展，到晚清民国时期，虽然立法因其先进性对赃物善意取得作出了规定，但当时社会的落后性使法律没有用武之地。建国后至《物权法》出台前我国立法及司法对于赃物善意取得制度没有统一并且明确的规定，这使得在如何处理赃物善意取得的问题上法律规定混乱、漏洞层出且矛盾突出，然而随后的《物权法》也对此作出了回避，，这就迫切需要确立赃物善意取得制度并对其进行一系列立法与司法上的规范。故应在选择采取限制肯定模式的基础上，对赃物的善意取得的构成要件及法律效果作出规定。纵观他国之相关立法，同时兼顾我国现实，有必要在规定赃物善意取得要件构成外规定原权利人的回复请求权，以求最大程度上维护当事人利益平衡，与此同时对回复请求权进行期限和适用上的规定和限制。通过对上述问题的研究及分析，以期使赃物善意取得制度能够在我国民事法律中有所明确规定，提高法律的科学性和合理性，保障民事法律有效实施，借此提高社会经济活动的公平和效率。
[Abstract]:The system of bona fide acquisition has evolved from the principle of "hand protection by hand" of Germanic law. The development of ancient, medieval, modern and modern has become an important system for the protection of trade security. In our country, the good faith acquisition system was recognized in the "property law", which was implemented in 2007, and the acquisition of the lost objects in good faith has also been made. But when the market economy is developing day by day, the stolen goods in the market have no difference between their own property and the general goods. As part of the circulation of the market, it is an undeniable objective reality. Therefore, the public credibility of the third people in good faith is produced. How to guarantee the good faith of third people in this situation? Interest is a practical and urgent demand. But "property law" does not deal with the application of the bona fide system of stolen goods or not. In criminal cases, the criminal suspects often carry out the normal market transactions of the crime or compensate for their due debts, and many have nothing to do with the criminal cases. The third people bought or accepted the proceeds of crime under unknowing circumstances, which resulted in the real acquisition of stolen goods in good faith. In this case, the establishment of a bona fide acquisition system of stolen goods was necessary both in the legislative and judicial levels.
The good faith acquisition of the stolen goods means that, under the circumstances of the possession of the person without the right of disposition, the third persons are transferred to the third party as the property of the other person and the income or deformable body produced by the property, as a result of the illegal gains, and if the third people acquire it on the basis of good faith, even if the property of the concession is a stolen property, the law of good faith is still produced. The law effect, that is, the third people in good faith acquire the ownership of the object, and the original owner may not take the ownership of the object. At present, there are three legislative modes for the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods: the completely inappropriate legislative model, the fully applicable legislative mode and the limitation of the affirmative legislative mode. In the analysis of the three legislative modes, the completely unsuitable legislative mode has not adapted to the modern market transaction. The fully applicable legislative mode will not be advisable to protect the interests of the good faith third persons at the expense of the original rights holders, but the affirmative legislative model takes into account the dynamic and static security of the ownership of the object. From the perspective of legal and economic analysis, the limited cost of legislation in the legal relationship of the bona fide acquisition of stolen goods is in conformity with the principle of maximizing the benefit, and is the best choice to perfect the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods in our country.
From the beginning of our country, our country has gone through the twists and turns on whether the stolen goods are applied in good faith. With the development of the society and the period of the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, although the legislation has made a provision for the acquisition of stolen goods in good faith, the backwardness of the society at that time made the law do not use the force of martial law. There is no unified and clear regulation on the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods, which makes the legal provisions on how to deal with the bona fide acquisition of stolen goods, the loopholes are out and the contradiction is prominent. However, the subsequent "property law" has also avoided this, which urgently needs to establish a system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods and carry out a series of establishment of it. It is necessary to stipulate the constitutive requirements and legal effects of the bona fide acquisition of stolen goods on the basis of the choice of the restrictive and affirmative model, and to take a look at the relevant legislation of his country and the reality of our country. It is necessary to stipulate the right of the original owner to request the return of the original owner in addition to the constitution of the well intentioned acquisition of stolen goods. To maintain the balance of the interests of the parties, at the same time, the time limit and the application of the right of reply are stipulated and restricted. Through the study and analysis of the above problems, the system of good faith acquisition of stolen goods can be clearly defined in the civil law of our country, to improve the scientific and rational law of the law, and to ensure the effective implementation of the civil law. In order to improve the fairness and efficiency of social and economic activities.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.2

【参考文献】