本文選題：居住權 + 約定居住權　； 參考：《四川大學》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 追溯了居住權最初在羅馬法中設立的目的，即解決個人私利基礎上的，社會道德范疇之內的撫養(yǎng)贍養(yǎng)義務。接著，闡述了承繼羅馬法的德法兩大民法典中成熟的居住權制度，及后來受其影響產生意大利民法典、瑞士民法典中也設立了居住權制度。同時分析了為何日本、臺灣兩地未設居住權制度的原因，結合我國目前現(xiàn)實生活中的現(xiàn)狀，即監(jiān)護關系、婚姻關系、弱勢群體的保護關系中居住權客觀存在的依據(jù)，歸納了現(xiàn)今主要存在的學者們關于居住權制度的各種反對意見，如居住權沒有設立的現(xiàn)實基礎、不能融入我國現(xiàn)有的制度框架、會導致居住關系混亂等等，繼而從現(xiàn)實需要、法律局限、房屋效益的最大化，，特別對于婚姻關系中的居住問題單獨分析，從而得出居住權在特殊群體的保護方面的優(yōu)越性以及居住權制度設立的必要性。 文章第二部分從居住權的具體性質入手，根據(jù)居住權客體的特征，按照居住權的設立方式，將居住權劃分為約定居住權和法定居住權兩大類。其中，約定居住權是指根據(jù)房屋所有人的意思而設立。法定居住權是指根據(jù)法律的規(guī)定直接產生的居住權。前者主要針對遺囑、遺贈、合同這三種房屋所有人得依自己獨立意思為關系人設立居住權的情況。后者則體現(xiàn)了居住權存在本身所應當具備的公益性質，即主要解決存在的各種弱勢群體，如父母、婚姻、殘疾人、老年人等的居住問題。這部分人在客觀環(huán)境下，缺乏對等的地位來達成約定。這兩種類型在設立居住權制度之時都應涉及，而不應有所偏頗，否則對于居住權來說，就是一個不完整的體系。 第三章節(jié)對2005年公布的物權法草案中已經成形的居住權制度的各項問題結合實際加以討論，根據(jù)現(xiàn)有的條文，在主體、客體、設立方式、登記、隨之享有的各項權利、義務及消滅的九個環(huán)節(jié)上提出筆者認為相對合理的建議。在最后的基本評價中，通過對人大討論稿、征求意見稿等資料的分析研究，解釋了為何居住權會在2007年正式通過的物權法上被予以刪除的主要原因。即居住權的適用面很窄，基于家庭關系的居住問題適用婚姻法有關撫養(yǎng)、贍養(yǎng)等規(guī)定，基于租賃關系的居住問題適用合同法等有關法律的規(guī)定，這些情形都不適用草案關于居住權的規(guī)定。而且，居住權大多發(fā)生在親屬朋友之間，一旦發(fā)生糾紛，可以通過現(xiàn)行有關法律規(guī)定的救濟渠道加以解決。但這樣做，顯見沒有真正意識到居住權在弱勢客體上的特殊作用，而輕率的將其刻意忽略的表現(xiàn)。當然，這也極有可能是居住權制度本身過于概念化和學術化的關系。] 結語部分，對于物權法對居住權設立的問題未予確認會造成的危害進行簡要的描述，再次肯定了居住權制度設立的必要性。
[Abstract]:The purpose of the right of abode originally established in Roman law is to solve the maintenance obligation within the scope of social morality on the basis of personal interests. Then, this paper expounds the mature residence right system in the German and French civil codes, which inherited the Roman law, and the Italian civil code under the influence of it, and the residence right system is also established in the Swiss civil code. At the same time, it analyzes the reasons why there is no residence right system in Japan and Taiwan, combined with the reality of our country, that is, guardianship relationship, marriage relationship, the protection of vulnerable groups in the protection of the objective existence of the right of abode. This paper sums up all kinds of opposition opinions of the scholars on the system of residence right, such as the fact that the right of residence has not been established and cannot be integrated into the existing institutional framework of our country, which will lead to the confusion of the housing relationship and so on, and then from the practical needs. The limitation of the law, the maximization of the housing benefit, especially the analysis of the housing problem in the marriage relationship, the superiority of the residence right in the protection of the special group and the necessity of the establishment of the residence right system. The second part of the article starts with the specific nature of the right of residence, according to the characteristics of the object of the right of residence, according to the way of establishment of the right of residence, the right of residence is divided into two categories: the agreed right of residence and the legal right of residence. Among them, the right of abode is established according to the intention of the owner of the house. The legal right of residence refers to the right of residence produced directly according to the provisions of the law. The former mainly aims at three kinds of housing owners: will, bequest and contract. The latter embodies the commonweal nature of the existence of the right of residence, that is, the settlement of the existence of various vulnerable groups, such as parents, marriage, the disabled, the elderly and other living problems. This part of the people in the objective environment, lack of equal status to reach agreement. These two types should be involved in the establishment of residence right system, but should not be biased, otherwise, it is an incomplete system for residence right. The third chapter discusses the problems of the system of residence rights, which have been formed in the draft of the property Law published in 2005, according to the existing provisions, in the subject, the object, the way of establishment, the registration, and the rights enjoyed therewith. On the nine links of obligation and elimination, the author puts forward some suggestions that are relatively reasonable. In the final basic evaluation, through the analysis of the draft of the people's Congress and the draft of soliciting opinions, this paper explains the main reasons why the right of residence was deleted in the property Law that was formally passed in 2007. That is, the scope of application of the right of residence is very narrow, and the provisions of the Marriage Law on the maintenance and maintenance of residence on the basis of family relations, and the provisions of the relevant laws such as the contract Law on the issue of residence on the basis of the lease relationship, are applicable. None of these cases applies to the provisions of the draft concerning the right of abode. Moreover, the right of residence mostly occurs between relatives and friends, once disputes occur, they can be solved through the relief channels provided by relevant laws. However, in doing so, it is obvious that the special role of residence right in the vulnerable object is not really realized, and it is thoughtfully ignored. Of course, it is also highly likely that the residency system itself is too conceptualized and academically oriented.] In the conclusion part, the author gives a brief description of the harm caused by the establishment of residence right in real right law, and confirms the necessity of the establishment of residence right system again.
【學位授予單位】：四川大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D923

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 陳峰;;論法定居住權制度在中國的確立[J];桂林師范高等�？茖W校學報;2007年02期

2 ;[J];;年期

3 ;[J];;年期

4 ;[J];;年期

5 ;[J];;年期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 高筱冬;論我國居住權制度的設立[D];四川大學;2007年

本文編號：1812645