【摘要】：2010年以來，隨著不動產(chǎn)市價的劇烈上漲，不動產(chǎn)二重買賣之現(xiàn)象日益增多，由此產(chǎn)生了各種問題，如誠實信用基本原則被踐踏、市場信賴削弱、各方利益失衡等，而現(xiàn)有立法之規(guī)制稍顯無力，理論之研究過于陳舊，因此，重新探討這一問題仍然必要。 文章正文共分為四個部分，即不動產(chǎn)二重買賣基本概念之厘定、二重買賣之后買賣合同的效力、二重買賣合同的履行和守約方的法律救濟。 第一部分界定了不動產(chǎn)二重買賣之構成，追問了問題起源，并多角度分析了這一行為之法律可非難性，從而確立了文章的基本立場。不動產(chǎn)二重買賣之構成不要求出賣人對不動產(chǎn)保有所有權或處分權。不動產(chǎn)二重買賣之發(fā)生具有必然性，其原因在于出賣人不顧信用、牟取私利之趨利本性和物權、債權權利公示可能性以及公示對抗力上的法律差異。然這一現(xiàn)象違背了誠實信用原則，應受法律否定性評價，效率違約理論并不能證成這一行為的正當性。 第二部分從生效合同之構成要件切入，指出二重之因素對于后買賣合同效力之影響主要在于合同標的是否適當。當?shù)诙I受人不知在先交易和僅單純知情時，標的不具有違法性，后買賣合同有效；當?shù)诙I受人不僅知曉在先交易，還故意以違背善良風俗之方式使前買賣合同無法得到實際履行，，損害第一買受人利益，標的不適當，第二買賣合同無效。由此得出，大多數(shù)不動產(chǎn)二重買賣之后買賣合同有效，除了惡意串通、引誘違約等情形。 第三部分依循第二部分之結論進一步追問兩個買賣合同有效情形下合同履行之問題。首先梳理了現(xiàn)有立法之規(guī)定，從一房多租、動產(chǎn)一物多賣以及一地（國有土地使用權）多轉情形下法律對合同履行順序的選擇可看出公示性因素對確定哪一合同得獲實際履行的重要影響以及法律保護在先交易的價值取向。接著，依據(jù)這一啟示對知情因素、登記、預告登記、實際占有、合同成立時間對合同履行之影響進行了逐一分析，由此得出不動產(chǎn)二重買賣的合同履行順序依前列因素順次確定之結論。 最后一部分緊接著重點分析另一未獲實際履行之買受人的救濟問題。首先探討了合同法領域的違約損害賠償請求權、雙倍賠償請求權、代償請求權、基于信托產(chǎn)生的受益交出請求權、撤銷權等救濟方式，得出結論：違約損害賠償請求權下，轉售利益或不動產(chǎn)價值上漲利益應屬合同履行后可得利益，若受損害人為第一買受人，可得利益的參照為后合同價格；若受損害人為第二買受人，于其不明知在先交易時，可得利益的參照為出賣人違約時的市場價格，于其明知時，其只得請求賠償直接損失也即所受損害。另外，前買受人亦可選擇行使代償請求權，或在具備雙倍賠償請求權和撤銷權行使條件時選擇相應救濟方式。然后探討了侵權法領域可得救濟的有限性，即僅當后買受人構成侵權時，前買受人可以主張侵權損害賠償。最后通過比較，說明此時前買受人通過主張后買賣合同無效予以救濟更為有利。
[Abstract]:Since 2010, with the dramatic rise in real estate market prices, the phenomenon of double sale of real estate has been increasing, resulting in a variety of problems, such as the violation of the basic principles of good faith, weakening of market trust, imbalance of interests of all parties, and so on. However, the existing legislative regulation is slightly weak, the theoretical study is too old, therefore, to re-explore this issue is still. It is necessary.
The text is divided into four parts, that is, the definition of the basic concept of double sale of real estate, the validity of the sale contract after double sale, the performance of the double sale contract and the legal remedy of the defending party.
The first part defines the composition of the double sale of real estate, inquires into the origin of the problem, and analyzes the legal reproachability of the act from various angles, thus establishing the basic position of the article. However, this phenomenon violates the principle of good faith and should be negatively evaluated by law. The theory of efficient breach of contract can not justify this behavior.
In the second part, the author points out that the effect of the dual factor on the validity of the contract is mainly due to the appropriateness of the subject matter of the contract. The intention is to make the former contract of sale impossible to be fulfilled in a manner contrary to the good custom, which damages the interests of the first buyer, the unsuitable subject matter, and the second contract of sale invalid.
The third part, following the conclusion of the second part, further inquires into the problem of the performance of the contract under the validity of the two sales contracts. Firstly, it combs out the provisions of the existing legislation. From the choice of the order of performance of the contract under the circumstances of multi-rent of one house, multi-sale of movable property and multi-transfer of one land (state-owned land use right), it can be seen that the public factor determines the order of performance of the contract. Next, according to the revelation, the paper analyzes the influence of the factors of knowing, registration, notice registration, actual possession and the time of contract formation on the performance of the contract one by one, and concludes that the order of performance of the contract for the double sale of real estate is in accordance with the foregoing factors. A definite conclusion.
The last part focuses on the relief of another buyer who has not been actually performed. Firstly, it discusses the right of claim for damages in breach of contract, the right of claim for double compensation, the right of claim for compensation, the right of claim for compensation for damages in breach of contract. If the injured party is the first buyer, the reference of the benefit shall be the price of the subsequent contract; if the injured party is the second buyer, the reference of the benefit shall be the market price at the time of the seller's breach of contract when he is not aware of the prior transaction. In addition, the former buyer may choose to exercise the right of claim for compensation, or choose the corresponding remedy when he has the conditions to exercise the right of claim for double compensation and the right of revocation. Finally, through comparison, it shows that it is more advantageous for the buyer to relieve the damages caused by the invalidity of the post-claim sale contract.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 霍政欣;;效率違約的比較法研究[J];比較法研究;2011年01期

2 朱建農(nóng);;論民法上惡意串通行為之效力[J];當代法學;2007年06期

3 孫良國;單平基;;效率違約理論批判[J];當代法學;2010年06期

4 吳一鳴;;論“單純知情”對雙重買賣效力之影響——物上權利之對抗力來源[J];法律科學(西北政法大學學報);2010年02期

5 尹田;;法律行為分類理論之檢討[J];法商研究;2007年01期

6 劉正峰;;物權客體代位主義研究[J];法商研究;2010年04期

7 王詠霞;論不動產(chǎn)物權變動中債權和物權的保護——兼論“一房二賣”問題[J];法學評論;1998年02期

8 徐紅新,張愛麗;第三人侵害債權理論之檢討[J];河北法學;2002年S1期

9 魏盛禮;第三人侵害債權理論:理論創(chuàng)新還是法學歧途?[J];河北法學;2005年09期

10 崔建遠;;出賣他人之物合同的效力設計——善意取得構成要件的立法論[J];河北法學;2006年03期

本文編號：2182538