为规避限购令之借名买房行为效力研究

发布时间：2018-01-20 14:42

本文关键词： 借名买房限购令规避合同代理效力　出处：《西南政法大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：国家为限制房价而颁布《国务院关于坚决遏制部分城市房价过快上涨的通知》等购房措施后，借名买房的现象屡见不鲜。虽然房屋买卖合同系当事人的真实意思表示，法律对思想意识没有约束力，但当事人之间的借名合同在发生争议时即是纠纷的焦点。这类借名合同明显违背了国家的限购令措施，有观点认为，其合同效力不受影响，因为限购令属于国家政策，不能构成违法。另一些观点则认为应当判定违法，但究其原因却说法不一：第一种认为其违反了《合同法》第52条第2项关于“恶意串通损害国家、集体或者第三人利益”而无效；第二种认为其属于第5项“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定”而无效；第三种认为限购令是为社会公共利益而设，应以违背法律、行政法规的强制性规定与违背社会公共利益的“一元论”来考量规避限购令的合同效力。本文通过引用两个关于违背国家政策而借名买房的案例，引出争议焦点所在，并从《合同法》第52条、代理、以及我国当前处理类似案件的实际做法，说明为规避限购令之借名买房行为的效力。本篇文章分为三个部分第一部分：案例引入。引用两个案例，一是判定规避限购令之借名买房合同为有效的案例，房屋仍归实际权利人所有。二是为规避经济适用房之规定而借名买房，，其合同被认定为无效而房屋归名义人所有的案例。都是不具备政府规定的某种购房资格，有意回避政策、法规，而法院对法条的不同理解，导致了不同的判决。本文通过案例指出争议的焦点与判决存在的问题，其分歧点在于对《合同法》第52条关于合同无效的不同认识，对限购令性质的认识差异，及该类合同中存在的代理关系的不明析。第二部分：为规避限购令之借名买房行为的效力分析。该部分是本文的重点，主要从合同、代理、及现行关于借名买房问题的处理办法，分析为规避限购令之借名买房行为的效力。合同方面主要从合同的一般理论，《合同法》第52条第5项关于法律、行政法规的强制性规定，第4项关于损害社会公共利益的规定，以及第5项是否应和第4项作二元区分。分析违背法律、行政法规的合同的效力，将限购令定性为管理性的强制性规范，需要同时违背社会公共利益才能认定合同无效，而规避限购令之借名买房合同正符合这两个条件。同时，在代理上，可将借名行为分为直接代理和间接代理来讨论合同效力。实际操作中，少数省份发布了指导借名买房的会议纪要，也界定了合同效力。因此，得出的结论是借名买房合同应属无效。第三部分：为规避限购令之借名买房争议的评析与解决建议。根据所述理论，再次分析案例，找出判决中存在的问题并提出自己的观点。同时根据所述案例反应的问题，给出解决建议。主要分为四方面：一是将长期实施的政策纳入立法内容；二是增强法官适用法律的能力；三是房屋登记机关严格执行不动产管理制度；四是实施有效的房地产调控政策。建议通过《价格法》调整房地产，同时政府应该增加保障性住房的供应以及土地的供给，从根本上解决供求平衡。
[Abstract]:As the country limit prices issued < the State Council on resolutely curb housing prices in parts of the city such as purchase measures notification on the rapid rise, by the name of housing phenomenon. Although It is often seen. real intention of the parties to the contract for the sale of housing, the law is not binding on the ideology, but between the parties by the name of the contract in the event of a dispute is a dispute the focus of this class. By the name of the contract clearly violates the state restriction measures, with a view of the validity of the contract is not affected, because the purchase order belongs to the national policy, does not constitute a violation of the law. Others think should be ruled illegal, but the reason is divided. The first thought in violation of the contract law > fifty-second < second on "malicious collusion harm the country, but not the interests of" collective or third people; second think it belongs to the fifth "violation of the law, compulsory administrative regulations The provisions of "null and void; the third that the purchase order is for the public interest, should be to violate the law, mandatory provisions of administrative regulations and violate social public interests" monism "to consider to circumvent the restriction order contract. This paper quotes two on the contrary to national policy and by the name of housing case that leads to the focus of controversy, and from the" contract law "article fifty-second, agent, and the actual practice of China's current deal with similar cases, instructions to avoid the purchase order effect of buying house behavior.
This article is divided into three parts
The first part: case introduction. Reference to two cases, one is determined to circumvent the restriction order by the name of the sales contract for effective case, the actual housing still belongs to the rights of all people. The two is to circumvent the provisions of affordable housing and buy a house by the name, the contract is invalid and the houses owned by the name of all cases it is not certain. Purchase qualifications stipulated by the government, avoidance of policies, regulations, and the court of different understanding of the law, leading to different decision. This paper points out the existing problems of the dispute focus and judgment through the case, the problem is to "contract law" article fifty-second of the contract invalid different understanding for the purchase of that difference in understanding the nature of the contract and agency relationship exists in the unknown analysis.
The second part: the analysis to avoid the restriction effect to buying house behavior. This part is the focus of this paper, mainly from the contract, agency, and the current about buying house problem analysis approach, to avoid restrictions effect to buying house behavior. The contract is mainly from the general theory of contract. "The Contract Law > fifty-second of fifth on the law, the mandatory provisions of administrative regulations, the provisions of the fourth on the damage of public interest, and whether it should be fifth and fourth for two yuan distinction. Analysis of the effect of administrative regulations violate the law, contract, the purchase order for the mandatory norms of qualitative management, need at the same time, contrary to the public interest to hold the contract invalid, and to circumvent the restriction order by the name of a contract is in line with the two conditions. At the same time, the agency, the name borrowing behavior is divided into direct agency and indirect agency to discuss the validity of the contract During the actual operation, a few provinces issued a meeting minutes to guide the purchase by name, and also defined the validity of the contract. Therefore, the conclusion is that the contract to buy a house by name should be invalid.
The third part: to circumvent the restriction order by the name of buy controversial comments and suggestions. According to the theory, analysis of the case again, find out the problems in judgments and put forward their own views. At the same time, according to the case of the reaction problem solving suggestions. Mainly divided into four aspects: one is to be carried out for a long time the policy into the legislative content; the two is to enhance the ability of the application of law; three is the housing registration authorities to strictly implement the real estate management system; four is to implement the regulation of real estate policy. Through the adjustment of the real estate price < >, at the same time, the government should increase the supply of affordable housing and land supply, from the fundamental to solve the supply and demand balance.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】