本文關(guān)鍵詞： 指示交付 善意取得 區(qū)分理論 返還原物請求權(quán)　出處：《東南學術(shù)》2017年06期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：指示交付中的轉(zhuǎn)讓返還請求權(quán)協(xié)議并非物權(quán)行為理論下的"處分行為",而仍屬合同范疇。在以指示交付進行無權(quán)處分的場合中,處分人向相對人讓與的返還請求權(quán)是債權(quán)請求權(quán),應適用債權(quán)讓與規(guī)則。《買賣合同司法解釋》第3條確立了無權(quán)處分合同有效的規(guī)則,基于體系強制和價值判斷的實體性論證,債權(quán)讓與合同的效力同樣不受無權(quán)處分影響,轉(zhuǎn)讓返還請求權(quán)協(xié)議亦然。而在轉(zhuǎn)讓人不是標的物的間接占有人的情況下,受讓人并不能因轉(zhuǎn)讓返還請求權(quán)協(xié)議生效而取得返還請求權(quán),也就未能滿足善意取得的"交付"要件。因此,對于《物權(quán)法司法解釋(一)》第18條"轉(zhuǎn)讓人與受讓人之間有關(guān)轉(zhuǎn)讓返還原物請求權(quán)的協(xié)議生效時為動產(chǎn)交付之時"的規(guī)定,應作目的性限縮,將"轉(zhuǎn)讓人不是動產(chǎn)的間接占有人"這一情形排除在外。
[Abstract]:The agreement of transfer and return claim in the direction delivery is not the disposition act under the real right act theory, but still belongs to the contract category. The right to return the disposition to the relative party is the claim of creditor's right, and the rule of assignment of creditor's rights should be applied. Article 3 of the Judicial interpretation of the contract of sale and purchase establishes the rules of validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition. Based on the substantive argument of system compulsion and value judgment, the validity of the contract of assignment of creditor's rights is also not affected by unauthorized disposition. Where the assignor is not the indirect possessor of the subject-matter, the assignee cannot obtain the restitution claim by virtue of the validity of the agreement on the transfer of the restitution claim. Thus, the "delivery" element obtained in good faith is not satisfied. Article 18 of the Judicial interpretation of property Law (1) "the agreement between the assignor and the assignee concerning the transfer of the claim for the return of the original property shall be the time of the delivery of movable property when the agreement on the transfer of the claim for return of the original property becomes effective", which should be restricted purposefully. Exclude the situation that the assignor is not an indirect possessor of movable property.
【作者單位】： 中國人民大學法學院;
【基金】：中國人民大學科學研究基金(中央高�；究茖W研究業(yè)務(wù)費專項資金資助)項目“指示交付適用善意取得制度問題研究——以區(qū)分理論的體系效應為視角”(項目編號:17XNH010)
【分類號】：D923.2
【正文快照】： (1)例如,最高人民法院在(2010)民四終字第20號判決書中,以及天津市高級人民法院在(2015)津高民四終字第77號判決書中,均明確認為,對于指示交付中完成交付的時間點,應比照《擔保法司法解釋》第88條“出質(zhì)人以間接占有的財產(chǎn)出質(zhì)的,質(zhì)押合同自書面通知送達占有人時視為移交”之

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙建楠;;指示交付問題初探[J];法制與社會;2008年13期

2 陳樹茂;;指示交付適用條件探析[J];安康學院學報;2009年02期

3 于芳;陳慶強;;指示交付初探[J];法制與社會;2014年16期

4 方一青;;通知:指示交付的成立要件——對我國《物權(quán)法》中指示交付制度的思考[J];法制與社會;2012年19期

5 肖俊;樊s，

本文編號：1452674