本文選題：單位集資房 + 合同無(wú)效��； 參考：《蘭州大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：單位集資房作為經(jīng)濟(jì)適用房的一種類型是我國(guó)體制改革過(guò)渡期間的一種特殊產(chǎn)物。隨著《經(jīng)濟(jì)適用住房管理辦法》中“任何單位不得利用新征用或新購(gòu)買土地組織集資合作建房,各級(jí)國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)一律不得搞單位集資合作建房”這一規(guī)定的實(shí)施,我國(guó)已經(jīng)從政策層面叫停了單位集資房,但是單位集資房所遺留的問(wèn)題仍然存在,這其中由于對(duì)單位集資房指標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)讓而引發(fā)的法律糾紛就在各地時(shí)有發(fā)生。并且相同的案件,在各級(jí)法院的判決下往往得到不同的判決結(jié)果,使得在司法實(shí)踐中,在如何去認(rèn)定集資房指標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同效力的問(wèn)題上產(chǎn)生了諸多爭(zhēng)議和分歧,因此如何去判定此類合同的效力,就顯得尤為重要,值得我們?nèi)ミM(jìn)一步的探討和分析。 本文由一起發(fā)生在甘肅省的單位集資房轉(zhuǎn)讓糾紛案例入手,首先簡(jiǎn)述一、二審法院和再審法院對(duì)本案的審理結(jié)果和判決結(jié)果,通過(guò)對(duì)案件爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)和此類案件法律分歧點(diǎn)的梳理,對(duì)本類案件進(jìn)行法律分析,著重對(duì)單位集資房指標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同標(biāo)的確認(rèn)和單位集資房指標(biāo)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同效力的確認(rèn)兩個(gè)方面進(jìn)行分析,進(jìn)而確定如何分析認(rèn)定此類合同的效力。 對(duì)本案合同效力認(rèn)定上的爭(zhēng)議以及在實(shí)際審判中出現(xiàn)的同案不同判的現(xiàn)象來(lái)看,我國(guó)《合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)及其解釋雖本著尊重當(dāng)事人意思表示、鼓勵(lì)交易的態(tài)度,對(duì)無(wú)效合同范圍層層縮減,但實(shí)際上其對(duì)司法實(shí)踐中判定違法合同的效力的實(shí)際指導(dǎo)意義卻是十分有限的,本文將對(duì)此進(jìn)行分析,提出應(yīng)將違法合同效力判斷歸于損害公共利益的范疇之下,通過(guò)比例原則指導(dǎo)下的利益衡量方法來(lái)對(duì)違法合同效力的最終結(jié)果進(jìn)行判定,對(duì)其在提高司法實(shí)踐中的可行性進(jìn)行探討。
[Abstract]:As a type of comfortable housing, unit-funded housing is a special product during the transitional period of China's system reform. With the implementation of the provisions of the "measures for the Administration of affordable Housing", "no unit may use new requisition or new land purchase organizations to raise funds to build houses, and all state organs at all levels shall not engage in joint housing construction with units," Our country has stopped the unit financing house from the policy level, but the problem left by the unit collection house still exists, among them, the legal dispute caused by the transfer of the unit financing house index occurs from time to time in various places. And the same cases, under the judgments of the courts at all levels, often get different results. In judicial practice, there are many disputes and differences on how to determine the validity of the contract of transfer of the capital raising housing indicators. Therefore, how to judge the effectiveness of such contracts, it is particularly important, worthy of further discussion and analysis. This article begins with a case of a dispute over the transfer of a unit's capital house in Gansu Province. First, the second instance court and the retrial court will give a brief account of the results of the trial and the judgment made by the court of second instance and the court of retrial. Through combing the focus of the case dispute and the legal division of this kind of cases, the legal analysis of this kind of cases is carried out. This paper focuses on the analysis of the confirmation of the target transfer contract and the validity of the transfer contract of the unit financing house index, and then determines how to analyze and identify the effectiveness of this kind of contract. From the point of view of the dispute over the validity of the contract in this case and the phenomenon of different judgments of the co-cases in the actual trial, although item 5 of Article 52 of the contract Law of China and its interpretation are based on the attitude of respecting the intention of the parties and encouraging the transaction, The scope of invalid contract is reduced layer by layer, but in fact, it is of limited practical significance to judge the effectiveness of illegal contract in judicial practice. It is proposed that the judgment of the effectiveness of illegal contracts should be classified into the category of harming the public interest, and the final result of the effectiveness of illegal contracts should be judged by the method of interest measurement under the guidance of the principle of proportionality. The feasibility of improving judicial practice is discussed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D920.5;D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 胡智勇;私法自治與國(guó)家強(qiáng)制——法律強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范與無(wú)效民事法律行為關(guān)系之分析與構(gòu)建[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

2 董靈;公序良俗原則與法制現(xiàn)代化[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1994年05期

3 孫鵬;;論違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定行為之效力——兼析《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)的理解與適用[J];法商研究;2006年05期

4 黃忠;;無(wú)效民事行為效力轉(zhuǎn)換制度研究[J];法商研究;2007年02期

5 江靜;;經(jīng)濟(jì)適用房法律問(wèn)題研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下半月);2008年01期

6 王衛(wèi)國(guó);論合同無(wú)效制度[J];法學(xué)研究;1995年03期

7 李軍;法律行為的效力依據(jù)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2005年01期

8 楊少南;論無(wú)效合同與訴訟時(shí)效的適用[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2005年02期

9 陳歷幸;;論無(wú)效法律行為的補(bǔ)正和轉(zhuǎn)換[J];政治與法律;2006年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1931663