本文選題：無權(quán)處分 + 合同效力��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：無權(quán)處分是民法上一個較為復(fù)雜的法律概念，從表面上看其直接涉及到至少三方當(dāng)事人的直接利益，從法理看上又與物權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移制度、善意取得制度、第三人信賴?yán)嬉约吧鐣灰装踩芮邢嚓P(guān)。正是因?yàn)闊o權(quán)處分問題的多角度性和復(fù)雜性，關(guān)于無權(quán)處分合同效力的判斷也存在多種學(xué)術(shù)主張，不同國家和地區(qū)的法律規(guī)定也存在較大的不同。正是在這種大背景下，筆者試圖主要從合同法和物權(quán)法法律制度目的的分析來探尋無權(quán)處分合同的法律效力，以尋求最合理的法律制度構(gòu)建。 縱觀其他國家和地區(qū)關(guān)于無權(quán)處分合同效力法律規(guī)定的歷史可以發(fā)現(xiàn)認(rèn)定無權(quán)處分合同效力為有效成為許多國家和地區(qū)最終的選擇。而從理論上分析，，認(rèn)定無權(quán)處分合同效力為有效也能夠在法理上自圓其說。雖然目前學(xué)術(shù)界對該問題的判斷仍然存在一定的爭議，但筆者認(rèn)為，這些爭義產(chǎn)生的根源事實(shí)上在于合同法理論和物權(quán)法理論上一些問題的界定不清晰和理論混淆，只有將這合同和物權(quán)這兩個密切相關(guān)且能相互配合的制度清晰地辨析區(qū)分開來，才能真正合理地判斷無權(quán)處分合同的效力應(yīng)該如何進(jìn)行法律定性。 本文筆者擬用四部分進(jìn)行論述。對第一部分將對本文論述的主題即無權(quán)處分合同效力的概念進(jìn)行分析界定，主要針對德國法上處分行為和負(fù)擔(dān)行為的區(qū)分進(jìn)行論述，同時(shí)通過我國的法律和司法解釋規(guī)定比較引出本文將要論述的中心問題。第二部分對世界上其他國家和地區(qū)關(guān)于無權(quán)處分合同效力的法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行列舉闡述，并對世界上各個國家和地區(qū)不同的法律規(guī)定從法律邏輯上進(jìn)行分析，以便進(jìn)行比較法研究。第三部分主要從物權(quán)和合同的這兩個法律制度的法理上進(jìn)行闡述，在不同的物權(quán)變動模式下，需要不同的合同制度與物權(quán)制度相互配合，物權(quán)方面就三大物權(quán)變動體系的法律內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行較為詳細(xì)的論述，而合同制度方面主要從合同法法律原則、立法目的上進(jìn)行論述，以便清晰區(qū)分物權(quán)法律制度和合同法律制度的不同要求，進(jìn)而得出在法理上能夠自圓其說的結(jié)論，即無權(quán)處分合同的效力依據(jù)法理應(yīng)為有效。第四部分將結(jié)合善意取得制度論述本文結(jié)論在實(shí)踐中對各方利益主體的權(quán)利義務(wù)的影響，以進(jìn)一步論證本文結(jié)論的合理性和可操作性。
[Abstract]:Unauthorized disposition is a complicated legal concept in civil law. On the surface, it is directly related to the direct interests of at least three parties, and from the point of view of legal theory, it is also related to the system of transfer of real right and the system of acquisition in good faith. Third party trust interest and social transaction security are closely related. It is precisely because of the multi-angle and complexity of the unauthorized disposition that there are many academic opinions on the judgment of the validity of the unauthorized disposition contract, and the legal provisions of different countries and regions are also quite different. It is under this background that the author tries to explore the legal effect of the unauthorized disposition contract mainly from the analysis of the purpose of the contract law and the legal system of the real right law in order to seek the most reasonable legal system construction. Throughout the history of other countries and regions about the legal provisions of the validity of unauthorized disposition contracts, it can be found that the validity of unauthorized disposition contracts has become the final choice of many countries and regions. From the theoretical analysis, the validity of the unauthorized disposition contract can be justified in legal theory. Although there are still some controversies on the judgment of this issue in academic circles, the author thinks that the origin of these disputes lies in the unclear definition and confusion of some problems in the theory of contract law and the theory of real right law. Only by distinguishing the contract from the real right, which are closely related and can cooperate with each other, can the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition be judged by law. The author intends to use four parts to discuss. The first part will analyze and define the concept of the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition, which is the main theme of this article, mainly focusing on the distinction between the disposition act and the burden act in German law. At the same time, through the comparison of our legal and judicial interpretation regulations, this paper will discuss the central issues. In the second part, the author enumerates the legal provisions about the validity of unauthorized disposition contracts in other countries and regions in the world, and analyzes the different legal provisions of different countries and regions in the world from the legal logic, in order to carry on the comparative law research. The third part mainly from the real right and the contract of these two legal systems of the legal theory, in the different real right change mode, needs the different contract system and the real right system to cooperate with each other, In the aspect of real right, the legal connotation of the three major real right alteration systems is discussed in detail, while the contract system is mainly discussed from the legal principle of contract law and the legislative purpose. In order to clearly distinguish the different requirements of the legal system of real right and the legal system of contract, we can draw the conclusion that the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition should be valid according to the legal principle. The fourth part will discuss the influence of the conclusion on the rights and obligations of the parties in practice, in order to further demonstrate the rationality and operability of the conclusion.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 傅鼎生;;不動產(chǎn)善意取得應(yīng)排除冒名處分之適用[J];法學(xué);2011年12期

2 崔建遠(yuǎn);;出賣他人之物合同的效力設(shè)計(jì)——善意取得構(gòu)成要件的立法論[J];河北法學(xué);2006年03期

本文編號：1791001