本文選題：擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同　切入點(diǎn)：非典型性擔(dān)保合同　出處：《揚(yáng)州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在當(dāng)前司法環(huán)境中,當(dāng)事人雙方為了給借貸合同提供擔(dān)保而訂立買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同(一般為不動(dòng)產(chǎn)買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同)的情形屢見(jiàn)不鮮。具體來(lái)說(shuō)就是:雙方當(dāng)事人簽訂借款合同,同時(shí)約定,在借款人不能如期歸還借款時(shí),需要繼續(xù)履行買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同。界定該類(lèi)合同性質(zhì)、明確該類(lèi)合同效力以及確定該類(lèi)合同項(xiàng)下當(dāng)事人之間權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系,是解決該類(lèi)問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵所在。對(duì)擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中性質(zhì)、有效性等法律問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析和梳理,是保障當(dāng)事人間訂立合同效力,及這一新興企業(yè)融資擔(dān)保途徑有效開(kāi)展的必要前提。本文通過(guò)探究擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同本質(zhì)屬性,得出結(jié)論,該類(lèi)合同是一種非典型擔(dān)保物權(quán)。該類(lèi)擔(dān)保物權(quán)是從我國(guó)特色的經(jīng)濟(jì)及法律背景下衍生出的。同時(shí)該類(lèi)非典型物權(quán)不與物權(quán)法定原則相沖突,雙方當(dāng)事人根據(jù)自愿原則所訂立的合同也不因違反通謀虛偽而無(wú)效。本文將從以下四部分對(duì)擔(dān)保性買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析:第一部分:提出問(wèn)題。通過(guò)對(duì)比“朱俊芳與陜西嘉和泰房地產(chǎn)公司商品房買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同糾紛案”與“俞伯良、李銀峰與嘉善房地產(chǎn)公司商品房買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同糾紛案”在審判實(shí)踐中不同的審判路徑,得出在司法實(shí)踐中該類(lèi)問(wèn)題如何定性、效力如何,審判實(shí)務(wù)中存在哪些分歧。同時(shí)《民間借貸司法解釋》第24條對(duì)擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同作出了明確的規(guī)定,但并不能消除爭(zhēng)議。其所明確的是:“以簽訂買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同作為民間借貸的合同,應(yīng)當(dāng)按照民間借貸法律關(guān)系審理”,對(duì)于標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移的情形并未指明裁判規(guī)則。從而對(duì)該類(lèi)合同項(xiàng)下,買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同究竟承擔(dān)怎樣角色,在司法實(shí)踐中缺少統(tǒng)一路徑。然而在“擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同”中,相比借款合同,對(duì)買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同的處理更具有復(fù)雜性。第二部分:擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同性質(zhì)的研究。擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同的性質(zhì)爭(zhēng)議頗多,主要有:擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同是不動(dòng)產(chǎn)抵押合同、擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同是典型性擔(dān)保合同等。本部分將擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同與其他相類(lèi)似合同對(duì)比,分析異同,得出擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同是非典型物權(quán)合同。第三部分:擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同效力分析。擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同效力說(shuō)有有效說(shuō)和無(wú)效說(shuō)兩種。造成以上爭(zhēng)議主要在于如何界定合同流質(zhì)條款性質(zhì),擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同是否因流質(zhì)而無(wú)效,同時(shí)擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同作為一種非典型物權(quán)合同,是否因違反物權(quán)法定而無(wú)效。第四部分:對(duì)擔(dān)保型買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中所中涉及具體法律問(wèn)題進(jìn)行辨析。主要是對(duì)該類(lèi)合同中擔(dān)保權(quán)人、擔(dān)保權(quán)設(shè)定人及第三人權(quán)利、義務(wù)進(jìn)行分析。試提出在同時(shí)做到保護(hù)權(quán)利人、義務(wù)人、第三人情況下,該類(lèi)合同合理的處理思路。
[Abstract]:In the current judicial environment, it is common for both parties to conclude a contract of sale (usually a contract for the sale of real estate) in order to provide security for a loan contract.Specifically, the parties sign a loan contract and agree that if the borrower fails to repay the loan on time, he shall continue to perform the contract of sale and purchase.Defining the nature of this kind of contract, clarifying the validity of the contract and determining the relationship between the rights and obligations of the parties under this kind of contract are the key to solve this kind of problem.Analyzing and combing the legal problems such as the nature and validity of the guaranteed sale contract is the necessary premise to guarantee the validity of the conclusion of the contract between the parties and the effective development of the financing guarantee way of this new enterprise.By exploring the essential attribute of the guaranteed sale contract, this paper draws the conclusion that this kind of contract is a kind of atypical security real right.This kind of security interest is derived from the economic and legal background with Chinese characteristics.At the same time, this kind of atypical real right does not conflict with the principle of property law, and the contract concluded by both parties according to the voluntary principle is not invalid for violating collusion hypocrisy.This paper will analyze the secured sale contract from the following four parts: the first part: put forward the question.By comparing "the dispute case between Zhu Junfang and Shaanxi Jiahe Tai Real Estate Company" and "the dispute case between Yu Boliang, Li Yinfeng and Jiashan Real Estate Company" in the trial practice,In the judicial practice, how to determine the nature of this kind of issues, how to effect, what differences exist in judicial practice.At the same time, Article 24 of the Judicial interpretation of Folk Lending makes a clear stipulation on the secured sale contract, but it can not eliminate the dispute.What is clear is that: "the contract to sign a contract of sale and purchase as a private loan should be tried according to the legal relationship of folk lending", and there is no rule of adjudication for the transfer of title to the subject matter.Therefore, under this kind of contract, what kind of role does the sale contract assume, lacks the unified path in the judicial practice.However, the handling of the sale contract is more complicated than that of the loan contract.The second part: the research of the nature of the guaranteed sale contract.There are a lot of disputes about the nature of guarantee sale contract, such as: guarantee sale contract is immovable property mortgage contract, guarantee sale contract is typical guarantee contract, etc.This part compares the secured sale contract with other similar contracts, analyzes the similarities and differences, and draws the conclusion that the secured sale contract is an atypical real right contract.The third part: the analysis of the validity of the guaranteed sale contract.There are two kinds of the theory of validity and invalidity of the guarantee contract of sale and purchase.The above disputes mainly lie in how to define the nature of the liquid clause of the contract, whether the guarantee sale contract is invalid because of the fluid property, and whether the guarantee sale contract, as a kind of atypical real right contract, is invalid because of the violation of the property law.The fourth part: analyze the specific legal problems involved in the secured sale contract.It mainly analyzes the rights and obligations of the security owner, the originator of the security right and the third party in this kind of contract.In the case of protecting the obligee, obligor and third party at the same time, this kind of contract should be dealt with reasonably.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：揚(yáng)州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 馮書(shū)劍;反悔買(mǎi)房 意向金不能還[J];資源與人居環(huán)境;2004年Z1期

2 吳旭日;;買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中風(fēng)險(xiǎn)移轉(zhuǎn)及負(fù)擔(dān)研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2007年03期

3 周秋榮;;淺談商品房買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同定金的認(rèn)定及糾紛的法律問(wèn)題[J];科技信息;2009年19期

4 徐正東;王濤;張凌;;油田買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同簽訂中易出現(xiàn)的漏洞與對(duì)策[J];今日科苑;2010年20期

5 楊茜顯;;買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)識(shí)別[J];中國(guó)電力企業(yè)管理;2010年25期

6 吳彥紅;;規(guī)避物資買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同履約風(fēng)險(xiǎn)[J];企業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2010年11期

7 鄒紫，

本文編號(hào)：1728461