【摘要】：所有權(quán)保留制度在我國(guó)是一種比較新穎的擔(dān)保方式,它在保護(hù)交易安全、均衡交易當(dāng)事人間的利益、促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展方面具有重大作用。但面對(duì)復(fù)雜而龐大的所有權(quán)保留制度體系,《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第134條的原則性規(guī)定和去年出臺(tái)的《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同糾紛案件適用法律問(wèn)題的解釋》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)“最高院的司法解釋”)對(duì)所有權(quán)保留問(wèn)題進(jìn)行的專(zhuān)門(mén)司法解釋顯得很單薄。在實(shí)際應(yīng)用過(guò)程中,所有權(quán)保留制度滯后的法律規(guī)定,無(wú)法很好的調(diào)整人們的交易行為,也無(wú)法體現(xiàn)該制度的巨大優(yōu)勢(shì)。本文選取買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中的所有權(quán)保留制度為研究對(duì)象,擬采用文獻(xiàn)歸納法、比較分析法、經(jīng)濟(jì)分析法等研究方法,對(duì)該制度中的一些法律問(wèn)題進(jìn)行深層次探討,以期為今后所有權(quán)保留制度的立法提供一些參考。 本文第二章從所有權(quán)保留制度的含義出發(fā),對(duì)所有權(quán)保留制度存在的合理性進(jìn)行分析。第三章介紹了國(guó)內(nèi)外有關(guān)所有權(quán)保留的立法現(xiàn)狀。通過(guò)比較,針對(duì)在理論界一直爭(zhēng)議不斷的所有權(quán)保留的法律性質(zhì)問(wèn)題,本文認(rèn)為應(yīng)從所有權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)和債的擔(dān)保兩個(gè)角度對(duì)其進(jìn)行分析,它應(yīng)是一種擔(dān)保性所有權(quán)。第四章主要解析了實(shí)踐中常出現(xiàn)爭(zhēng)議的關(guān)于所有權(quán)保留制度的幾個(gè)具體問(wèn)題。分析了所有權(quán)保留的動(dòng)產(chǎn)客體范圍以及最高院司法解釋排除所有權(quán)保留對(duì)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)適用的原因。本章還比較了非登記主義、登記主義和區(qū)分登記主義幾種公示模式,通過(guò)分析其中的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和弊端,認(rèn)為我國(guó)應(yīng)采用書(shū)面成立一登記對(duì)抗主義的公示方法。本章分別從出賣(mài)人的取回權(quán)和買(mǎi)受人的期待兩方面探討了所有權(quán)保留的對(duì)內(nèi)效力,還從出賣(mài)人將標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)讓與第三人、買(mǎi)受人將標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)讓與第三人、第三人侵害標(biāo)的物時(shí),買(mǎi)賣(mài)雙方和第三人的權(quán)利義務(wù)三方面分析了所有權(quán)保留的對(duì)外效力。第五章是對(duì)完善我國(guó)所有權(quán)保留制度的立法期望。本文認(rèn)為首先要統(tǒng)一指導(dǎo)思想,在此基礎(chǔ)上,針對(duì)我國(guó)所有權(quán)保留制度的相關(guān)立法和司法解釋的缺陷,提出完善我國(guó)所有權(quán)保留制度的立法建議。
[Abstract]:Retention of title system is a novel way of guarantee in China, which plays an important role in protecting transaction security, balancing the interests of the parties to the transaction and promoting economic development. However, in the face of the complex and huge system of retention of ownership system, the principle of Article 134 of the contract Law of the people's Republic of China and the legal issues applicable to the Supreme people's Court concerning the trial of disputes over sale and purchase contracts issued last year The special judicial explanation of title retention is very weak. In the process of practical application, the legal provisions of the retention of title system lag behind, can not adjust the transaction behavior of people well, nor can it reflect the huge advantages of the system. This paper selects the ownership retention system in the contract of sale and purchase as the research object, and uses the methods of literature induction, comparative analysis, economic analysis and so on, to probe into some legal problems in this system. In order to provide some reference for the future legislation of retention of title system. The second chapter analyzes the rationality of ownership retention system from the meaning of ownership retention system. The third chapter introduces the domestic and foreign legislation status of retention of title. By comparison, in view of the legal nature of the retention of title, which has been controversial in the theoretical circle, this paper holds that it should be analyzed from the two angles of transfer of ownership and guarantee of debt, which should be a kind of secured ownership. The fourth chapter mainly analyzes several specific problems concerning retention of title system, which are often disputed in practice. This paper analyzes the object scope of title retention and the reasons why the Supreme Court's judicial interpretation excludes the ownership retention from being applicable to immovable property. This chapter also compares several publicity modes of non-registrationism, registerism and registerism. By analyzing their advantages and disadvantages, the author holds that our country should adopt the method of establishing a register antagonism in writing. This chapter discusses the internal effect of the retention of title from the seller's right to take back and the buyer's expectation, and the seller transfers the title of the subject matter to the third party, and the buyer transfers the title of the subject matter to the third party. When the third party infringes on the subject matter, the rights and obligations of the buyer and seller and the third party analyze the external effect of the retention of title. The fifth chapter is the legislative expectation of perfecting the system of retention of ownership in China. This article thinks that first of all, we should unify the guiding ideology, on this basis, in view of the defects of the relevant legislation and judicial interpretation of the retention of ownership system in our country, put forward the legislative suggestions to perfect the ownership retention system of our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南昌大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 宋思語(yǔ);所有權(quán)保留制度研究[D];廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2132698