本文選題：所有權(quán)保留　切入點(diǎn)：跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：所有權(quán)的保留條款設(shè)計(jì)的初衷，本是在國(guó)際貨物買賣中為防止買受人不依照合同的約定，履行支付貨款的義務(wù)而損害出賣人的利益，當(dāng)買受人支付了一部分或者未全部支付時(shí)，出賣人可以基于合同中的保留條款向買受人主張返還貨物。但是，在跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中，尤其是在買受人進(jìn)入破產(chǎn)程序后，出賣人可能就會(huì)成為一般破產(chǎn)債權(quán)人，這時(shí)，所有權(quán)的保留條款將對(duì)此提出挑戰(zhàn)。由于出賣人可以援用保留條款從破產(chǎn)人處取回標(biāo)的物，其他債權(quán)人的利益可能因此被損害。如果國(guó)際貨物的買賣契約中訂有所有權(quán)的保留條款，在買受人破產(chǎn)并占有著出賣人的貨物而未全部支付貨款的情形下，跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)程序中對(duì)該條款的效力問(wèn)題的認(rèn)定，將對(duì)出賣人以及其他債權(quán)人產(chǎn)生十分重要的意義。由于各國(guó)對(duì)所有權(quán)的保留的對(duì)象以及該條款的效力的態(tài)度不同，有些國(guó)家僅允許就買賣合同項(xiàng)下的標(biāo)的物能夠行使保留所有權(quán)，而有些國(guó)家則允許除了原標(biāo)的物外，買受方通過(guò)標(biāo)的物取得的收益和基于其他合同產(chǎn)生的債權(quán)都可以進(jìn)行保留。同時(shí)，有些國(guó)家立法規(guī)定所有權(quán)保留無(wú)需登記便可生效，但有些國(guó)家則規(guī)定必須進(jìn)行登記才能生效或者采用登記對(duì)抗效力。因此，賣方將面臨兩種命運(yùn)，或者依照所有權(quán)保留條款從破產(chǎn)人處取回貨物，或者成為一般債權(quán)人，按照破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)分配原則獲得清償。本文將結(jié)合所有權(quán)的保留的理論探討其在跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中的效力問(wèn)題。 全文共分四個(gè)部分，包括正文和結(jié)語(yǔ)。 第一部分“保留所有權(quán)的制度的理論及其立法現(xiàn)實(shí)”。主要就保留所有權(quán)的涵義及其種類進(jìn)行闡述，同時(shí)對(duì)具有爭(zhēng)議的所有權(quán)的保留的法律屬性進(jìn)行界定以及各國(guó)對(duì)所有權(quán)的保留的立法現(xiàn)實(shí)。 第二部分“跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中保留所有權(quán)制度的對(duì)象及其設(shè)立機(jī)制”。目前各國(guó)大多承認(rèn)動(dòng)產(chǎn)可以成為所有權(quán)的保留的對(duì)象，但是也有少數(shù)國(guó)家認(rèn)為保留不動(dòng)產(chǎn)的所有權(quán)也是允許的。此外，，還可能涉及到諸如保留所有權(quán)的擴(kuò)展下引申出來(lái)的買受人處分貨物所得的價(jià)金以及加工后的產(chǎn)品等特殊貨物。對(duì)于所有權(quán)的保留的設(shè)立機(jī)制，主要有意思自治的原則、登記的生效主義、登記的對(duì)抗效力三種。各國(guó)對(duì)此的態(tài)度也有所不同。 第三部分“跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中所有權(quán)的保留的內(nèi)部權(quán)利結(jié)構(gòu)”。在這部分，將闡釋在跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中有關(guān)出賣人對(duì)標(biāo)的物的取回的權(quán)利，買受人的期待權(quán)以及破產(chǎn)中對(duì)第三人的利益保護(hù)。 第四部分“跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中所有權(quán)的保留條款的效力”。主要結(jié)合兩個(gè)著名的相關(guān)案例闡釋兩種不同的觀點(diǎn)，即承認(rèn)說(shuō)以及否認(rèn)說(shuō)，以及在出賣人破產(chǎn)和買受人破產(chǎn)時(shí)的各自效力問(wèn)題，并就所有權(quán)保留條款在跨國(guó)破產(chǎn)中可能產(chǎn)生的沖突與困難加以論述，提出相應(yīng)地解決建議。 最后的結(jié)語(yǔ)部分是對(duì)本文的總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:The ownership reservation clause of the original intention of the design, this is in the international sale of goods in order to prevent the buyer is not in accordance with the contract, to fulfill payment obligations damages the interests of the seller, the buyer pays a part or not paid, the seller can retain the same terms to buyers claim based on the return of the goods. However, in transnational insolvency, especially in the buyer insolvency, the seller may become general creditors, then retained ownership clause will be challenged. Because the seller can invoke the reserve clause from the bankrupt to retrieve the subject matter, the interests of other creditors may be damaged. If the reserve clause has ordered ownership of international goods sale contract, the buyer and the seller bankruptcy occupies the goods without payment in all circumstances, transnational broken The validity of the clause in the program production problems, will have a very important significance to the seller and other creditors. The ownership of the object and the effect of the retention of the terms of the attitude is different, some countries only allow the contract of sale of the subject matter can exercise the ownership retained, while others in addition to the original permit subject matter, buy by the parties through the subject matter and other revenue generated based on contract claims can be retained. At the same time, some national legislation of ownership reservation without registration will be effective, but some others require to register to take effect or the registration confrontation effect. Therefore, the seller will face the fate of two, or in accordance with Clause of reservation of ownership from the bankrupt to retrieve the goods, or become general creditors, obtain repayment in accordance with the principle of this paper. The distribution of the bankruptcy property The theory of retention of ownership will be used to discuss the problem of its effectiveness in transnational bankruptcy.
The full text is divided into four parts, including the text and the conclusion.
The first part is the theory of "retention of ownership" and its legislative reality. It mainly expounds the meaning and types of retention of ownership, and defines the legal attributes of the controversial ownership reservation as well as the legislative reality of the retention of ownership in various countries.
The second part of "transnational bankruptcy to retain ownership system and set up a mechanism of object. At present most countries admit that real estate can be retained ownership of the object, but there are a few countries that retain ownership of real estate is also allowed. In addition, may also be related to the expansion such as retained ownership arising out of the buyer the price of gold and the disposition of goods processed products and other special goods. The ownership reservation mechanism are established, the principle of autonomy, the validity of registration, registration of the antagonistic effect of three kinds. Each country's attitude is also different.
The third part is "the internal right structure of ownership reservation in transnational bankruptcy". In this part, we will explain the right to retrieve the seller's object in the transnational bankruptcy, the buyer's right to expect and the protection of the third party's interests in bankruptcy.
The fourth part of "transnational bankruptcy in the retention of title clause". Combined with the two related cases to explain the famous two different points of view, that is admitted and denied that their problems and buy effect when the seller bankruptcy and bankruptcy, and the ownership of insurance clauses in the conflict and difficulty leaving transnational bankruptcy possible to discuss, put forward the corresponding solutions.
The last part of the conclusion is the summary of this article.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D997

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王建源;論所有權(quán)保留之延伸[J];比較法研究;2005年02期

2 龍著華;論所有權(quán)保留買賣與善意第三人的保護(hù)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2005年03期

3 孫向齊;;破產(chǎn)代償取回權(quán)研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年02期

4 曲宗洪;;不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)保留[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年35期

5 王瑩;邱鳳普;;所有權(quán)保留制度研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年02期

6 余波;所有權(quán)保留中的權(quán)利沖突及其衡平[J];河北法學(xué);2001年06期

7 謝守分;所有權(quán)保留之相關(guān)問(wèn)題的比較研究[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年05期

8 王磊,張澤平;世界各國(guó)所有權(quán)保留制度立法實(shí)踐及對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];新疆社科論壇;2003年05期

9 郭錫昆,黃維;所有權(quán)保留式分期付款買賣若干風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的法律克服[J];行政論壇;2002年02期

10 柴振國(guó),史新章;所有權(quán)保留若干問(wèn)題研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2003年04期

本文編號(hào)：1680609