本文選題：所有權(quán)保留　切入點(diǎn)：取回權(quán)　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：當(dāng)前的中國經(jīng)濟(jì)中,間接融資的比重過高,這不僅加大了許多銀行壞賬的機(jī)率,而且也使得小型公司獲取資金的成本過高,不利于小型公司的做大做強(qiáng)和長久發(fā)展。并且隨著中國消費(fèi)者購買力的膨脹,消費(fèi)信貸行業(yè)也突飛猛進(jìn)、蒸蒸日上。在這樣一個(gè)大背景下,我國的所有權(quán)保留買賣日益興盛。因?yàn)樗袡?quán)保留買賣既緩解了出賣人對(duì)交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的擔(dān)憂,也滿足了買受人對(duì)資金的需求,是一種迎合多方需求雙贏的制度,該制度屬于物權(quán)與債權(quán)相契合的范疇,滿足了經(jīng)濟(jì)消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域的需要,同時(shí)也伴隨著許多問題的出現(xiàn)�！蛾P(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》(以下簡稱《買賣合同司法解釋》)是最高院在2012年頒布的,該解釋首次建立了我國所有權(quán)保留買賣的框架,將經(jīng)濟(jì)生活中保留買賣的現(xiàn)象納入了法律規(guī)范之中。但《買賣合同司法解釋》中對(duì)所有權(quán)保留的規(guī)定僅有4條,這4條是否足以指引司法實(shí)踐、定紛止?fàn)?還存在哪些漏洞亟待彌補(bǔ)和改進(jìn),正是本篇論文的創(chuàng)作初衷。取回權(quán)是所有權(quán)保留中的核心,起到牽一發(fā)而動(dòng)全身的關(guān)鍵作用。它既是出賣人維護(hù)自身權(quán)益的手段,又極有可能侵害到買受人的合法權(quán)益,伴隨著取回權(quán)的行使,有關(guān)取回權(quán)的行使條件、范圍、程序和風(fēng)險(xiǎn)負(fù)擔(dān)問題就亟需細(xì)化明確。在保留賣主取回標(biāo)的物之后,又涉及到買受人能否再次占有標(biāo)的物和出賣人就物求償實(shí)現(xiàn)方式等問題,以及取回權(quán)與損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)是否存在競(jìng)合等問題。本文正是從取回權(quán)入手,以取回權(quán)為核心展開對(duì)所有權(quán)保留買賣的研究。本文以問題意識(shí)為導(dǎo)向,將全文分為三個(gè)部分。第一部分:性質(zhì)的界定是問題展開論述的基礎(chǔ),該部分評(píng)析了各家學(xué)說,闡釋了為什么我國所有權(quán)保留的性質(zhì)是附條件的所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移。為什么我國取回權(quán)的性質(zhì)屬于就物求償。第二部分:圍繞著取回權(quán)的行使探究了以下幾個(gè)問題。第一,在破產(chǎn)情況下,取回權(quán)的行使是否受影響?本文區(qū)分了保留賣主破產(chǎn)和保留買主破產(chǎn)兩種情況,分別加以論述。第二,取回權(quán)能否對(duì)抗善意取得制度?不能。延長型所有權(quán)保留能否規(guī)避第三人取得所有權(quán)?應(yīng)區(qū)分商事領(lǐng)域和消費(fèi)領(lǐng)域,視情況而定。第三,取回權(quán)的行使程序。在現(xiàn)行制度下出賣人行使取回權(quán)的成本過高,本文建議可以將取回權(quán)的行使納入支付令的范疇。第四,在添附的情形下,取回權(quán)的范圍有哪些?第五,取回權(quán)行使過程中產(chǎn)生的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)由誰負(fù)擔(dān)?應(yīng)視違約的程度,綜合來判斷。第三部分:取回權(quán)與其相關(guān)權(quán)利之間的關(guān)系。第一,取回權(quán)的行使損害了買受人的期待利益,應(yīng)在取回權(quán)和期待利益之間尋找平衡點(diǎn)。第二,取回標(biāo)的物后是否必須預(yù)留回贖期間?不是,應(yīng)以標(biāo)的物的性質(zhì)做區(qū)分,回贖期經(jīng)過后的法律效果根據(jù)買受人的選擇而有所不同。第三,標(biāo)的物再次出賣后的利益歸屬問題。第四,取回權(quán)與損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)是否發(fā)生權(quán)利競(jìng)合?要看保留買主承擔(dān)了違約責(zé)任后是否消除了行使取回權(quán)的事由。
[Abstract]:The current Chinese economy, the high proportion of indirect financing, which not only increases the probability of a lot of bad debts, but also makes small companies access to capital cost is too high, is not conducive to small business bigger and stronger and lasting development. With the expansion and Chinese purchasing power of consumers, the consumer credit industry by leaps and bounds, on the upgrade in this. A background, China's growing prosperity. Because of the retention of title retention of title can relieve the seller of transaction risk concerns, but also to meet the buyer's demand for capital, is a win-win system cater to various needs, the system of creditor's rights and property rights belong to fit the category, to meet the the need of economic consumption, but also accompanied by many problems. The legal issues on the trial of business contract dispute case applicable interpretation "(hereinafter referred to as the" contract for the sale of Justice Is the Supreme Court Interpretation ") enacted in 2012, the first established the framework of our retention, the economic life of the retention phenomenon in legal norms. But the contract for the sale of" judicial interpretation of the provisions on the ownership reservation is only 4, the 4 is sufficient to guide the judicial practice. Settle disputes, there are loopholes and needs to make up for improvement, it is this paper's original creation. The recall right is the core of the retention of title, plays a key role in QianYiFaErDongQuanShen. It is a seller to safeguard their own interests, and is likely to infringe the buyer the legitimate rights and interests, with the exercise of the recall right, the scope of the exercise conditions, the recall right, procedure and risk burden need refinement clear. In reserve the seller to retrieve the subject matter, but also relates to the buyer can once again have accounted for the subject matter and The seller will issue the mode of realization, and recall right and claim for damages if there is concurrence problems. This article tries to recall right to get right to the core of the retention of ownership. In this paper, the problem of consciousness as a guide will be divided into three parts. The first part: the nature the definition of the problem is discussed based on the part of the analysis of the various theories, the nature explains why our ownership reservation is the transfer of ownership of conditional nature of recall right. Why our country belongs to the matter. The second part explores the following issues: exercise around the recall right. First, in the case of bankruptcy next, the exercise of the recall right is affected? This paper distinguishes between bankruptcy and bankruptcy reservations Seller Buyer two situations are discussed. Second, the recall right against the bona fide acquisition system can not? . prolonged retention of title could circumvent the third people to obtain ownership? Should distinguish between commercial and consumption, depending on the situation. In third, the program of exerting the right. Under the current system of exerting the right of Seller cost is too high, we can exercise the recall right into the order of payment category. In fourth. The enclosed case, what are the scope of the recall right? Fifth, the exercise of the right to retrieve the risk generated in the process of who is responsible? Should be considered to determine the extent of breach of contract, comprehensive. The third part: the relationship between the recall right and related rights. First, take the exercise of the right to damages the buyer's expectation interests should be looking for the balance between recall right and expected benefit. Second, retrieve the subject matter whether must be reserved for redemption period? Not, should be based on the nature of the subject matter separates the legal effect after the redemption period according to the buyer's choice There are differences. Third, the issue of interest attribution after the sale of the subject matter. Fourth, whether the right of claim is concurrence between the right of recovery and the claim for damage compensation? It depends on whether the buyer retains the right to exercise the recall right after assuming the responsibility for breach of contract.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 易軍;違約責(zé)任與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)負(fù)擔(dān)[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1650917