本文選題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣 + 委托拍賣��； 參考：《江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：民訴法關(guān)于“人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)拍賣被查封、扣押的財(cái)產(chǎn)”和“可以委托有關(guān)單位變賣或自行變賣”的規(guī)定,為法院開(kāi)展司法拍賣改革提供了遐想的空間,而民訴法解釋關(guān)于可以由符合條件的拍賣公司拍賣,也可以決定由法院自己拍賣的規(guī)定,彌補(bǔ)了法院自行開(kāi)展網(wǎng)拍在法律依據(jù)上的空白。本文以網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的定義、特征為切入點(diǎn),對(duì)比了網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣與網(wǎng)絡(luò)拍賣及與傳統(tǒng)自行拍賣的相同和不同之處,分析了網(wǎng)拍產(chǎn)生的社會(huì)背景,綜合分析了我國(guó)網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣在立法和實(shí)踐上的不足,即選擇拍賣方式的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不明確、參與主體間法律關(guān)系不清、參與主體和客體存在局限性、競(jìng)買人權(quán)利救濟(jì)渠道模糊、監(jiān)督與管理機(jī)制的缺位等。在考察國(guó)外網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣立法例的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合我國(guó)司法拍賣的實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀,提出應(yīng)該從構(gòu)建程序性與實(shí)體性規(guī)則兩方面著手,完善我國(guó)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣制度。在程序性規(guī)則方面:一要明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的適用范圍;二要建立網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣平臺(tái)的準(zhǔn)入與退出機(jī)制;三要建立拍賣信息公示制度,包括明確首次和非首次拍賣應(yīng)當(dāng)公示的信息內(nèi)容、嚴(yán)格停止或撤回拍賣信息的發(fā)布;四要規(guī)范網(wǎng)絡(luò)異常應(yīng)對(duì)流程,包括探索建立法院自己的網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣平臺(tái)、建立網(wǎng)絡(luò)異常申報(bào)機(jī)制和處理規(guī)則。在實(shí)體性規(guī)則方面:一是厘清網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣各主體間的法律關(guān)系。即法院與競(jìng)買人之間應(yīng)當(dāng)是實(shí)施者與參與者的關(guān)系、網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供者與法院之間應(yīng)當(dāng)是輔助與被輔助的關(guān)系、網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易平臺(tái)提供者與競(jìng)買人僅產(chǎn)生間接聯(lián)系;二是完善網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣監(jiān)管體系,包括明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的監(jiān)管主體、監(jiān)管對(duì)象及監(jiān)管內(nèi)容;三是確認(rèn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的法律效果。即明確買受人對(duì)拍賣物的取得方式為原始取得的前提下,既無(wú)物的瑕疵擔(dān)保請(qǐng)求權(quán),也無(wú)權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保請(qǐng)求權(quán)。
[Abstract]:The provisions of the people's Law on "the people's Court shall auction the seized and seized property" and "may entrust the relevant units to sell or sell on their own" provide a room for the courts to carry out judicial auction reform. The civil action law explains that the auction can be carried out by the eligible auction company or the court can decide to auction itself, which makes up the gap in the legal basis for the court to carry out the racquet itself. Based on the definition and characteristics of online judicial auction, this paper compares the similarities and differences between online judicial auction and online auction and traditional self-auction, and analyzes the social background of the emergence of racquet. This paper comprehensively analyzes the shortcomings in legislation and practice of our country's network judicial auction, that is, the standard of choosing auction method is not clear, the legal relationship between participants is unclear, the subject and object of participation are limited, and the channel of right relief for bidders is unclear. The absence of supervision and management mechanism. On the basis of investigating the legislative cases of foreign network judicial auction and combining the present situation of judicial auction in our country, this paper puts forward that we should start from the construction of procedural and substantive rules to perfect the system of network judicial auction in our country. In terms of procedural rules: first, it is necessary to clarify the scope of application of the online judicial auction; second, to establish the access and exit mechanism of the network judicial auction platform; third, to establish the auction information publicity system, Including clarifying the information content that should be published for the first and non-first auctions, strictly stopping or withdrawing the issuance of auction information; fourth, standardizing the network abnormal response process, including exploring the establishment of the court's own online judicial auction platform, Establish network anomaly declaration mechanism and deal with rules. In the aspect of substantive rules, the first is to clarify the legal relationship between various subjects of network judicial auction. That is, the relationship between the court and the bidder should be between the executor and the participant, the relationship between the provider of the online trading platform and the court should be auxiliary and the relationship between the provider of the online trading platform and the bidder should only be indirect. The second is to perfect the supervision system of network judicial auction, including defining the subject of supervision, the object of supervision and the content of supervision, and the third is to confirm the legal effect of network judicial auction. That is to say, under the premise that the buyer acquires the auctioneers in the original way, there is neither the right of claim for defective guarantee nor the right of claim for guarantee of defect.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：江西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 高穎佳;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的關(guān)系主體及其法律責(zé)任[J];湖南工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年03期

2 褚紅軍;唐志容;;司法網(wǎng)絡(luò)拍賣的理論與實(shí)踐[J];人民司法;2015年07期

3 湯維建;;論司法拍賣市場(chǎng)化改革及其完善[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2015年01期

4 黃忠順;;司法強(qiáng)制拍賣改革的深度透析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2015年01期

5 丁廣宇;朱新林;;司法拍賣模式的探索與思考[J];法律適用;2014年11期

6 李代華;;淘寶司法拍賣存在的問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2014年08期

7 張?jiān)A;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)代下司法拍賣改革的路徑選擇[J];法律適用;2014年05期

8 蘇藝;;淺析網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2013年11期

9 金善達(dá);;從“司法拍賣上淘寶”透視網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年07期

10 金善達(dá);;網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的合法性研究[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 劉小寶;;對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣的幾點(diǎn)認(rèn)識(shí)[N];人民法院報(bào);2015年

2 孟煥良;;司法拍賣回歸自主模式[N];人民法院報(bào);2015年

3 陳東升 ;王春;;浙江98家法院開(kāi)展網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 毋愛(ài)斌;民事執(zhí)行拍賣制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

2 譚秋桂;民事執(zhí)行原理研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2000年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 彭超峰;網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣法律問(wèn)題探究[D];河南大學(xué);2015年

2 趙琦;我國(guó)網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣制度探究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

3 曹治瑤;民事訴訟法下的網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2015年

4 夏華玲;法院網(wǎng)絡(luò)強(qiáng)制拍賣制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：2058611