本文選題：動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣 + 登記對(duì)抗主義��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：最高人民法院在確立多重買賣標(biāo)的物的歸屬問題上出現(xiàn)了兩個(gè)錯(cuò)誤,一個(gè)是沒有注意到正常買賣和多重買賣的區(qū)別,預(yù)設(shè)了在合同可以實(shí)際履行的情況下,標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)必須歸屬于其中某一個(gè)買受人所有的思維定式,成為了違反債權(quán)平等原則的思想根源,極有可能導(dǎo)致差別對(duì)待不同的享有債權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)的買受人。另一個(gè)是沒有準(zhǔn)確理解《物權(quán)法》第24條所規(guī)定的登記對(duì)抗主義的立法意圖,虛化了登記的對(duì)抗效力,危及交易安全,挫傷了特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)買賣中鼓勵(lì)買受人進(jìn)行登記的立法意圖的實(shí)現(xiàn)。從立法論的角度,應(yīng)該依據(jù)如下規(guī)則來認(rèn)定動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中標(biāo)的物的所有權(quán):首先,應(yīng)該認(rèn)定動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中各個(gè)合同的效力,次買受人明知出賣人已經(jīng)就同一標(biāo)的物簽署買賣合同者,不再對(duì)次買受人的主觀惡意狀態(tài)進(jìn)行細(xì)分,直接依據(jù)《合同法》第52條第2項(xiàng)的“惡意串通”認(rèn)定該合同無效,即使次買受人只是“單純知情”;標(biāo)的物未交付的,排除其對(duì)于動(dòng)產(chǎn)標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的債權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán),已經(jīng)交付的,其他買受人有權(quán)請(qǐng)求其將標(biāo)的物返還。其次,在各個(gè)買賣合同均不存在效力瑕疵的情況下,如果動(dòng)產(chǎn)標(biāo)的物已經(jīng)交付或者登記的,法官可直接認(rèn)定動(dòng)產(chǎn)標(biāo)的物的所有權(quán)歸屬于受領(lǐng)交付或取得登記的買受人;原因在于,受領(lǐng)交付的買受人已經(jīng)取得物權(quán)優(yōu)于其他買受人的債權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán),取得登記的買受人可以基于立法政策對(duì)于登記公示的保護(hù)來得到優(yōu)先保護(hù)。再次,在特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中,出賣人分別將標(biāo)的物交付和登記給不同的買受人的,由于登記可以消極對(duì)抗交付的效力,二者可以平等地對(duì)標(biāo)的物主張所有權(quán),此時(shí),法官應(yīng)該依據(jù)競價(jià)購買及優(yōu)先受償規(guī)則來確定標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬。最后,在各個(gè)買受人均未受領(lǐng)交付或取得登記的情形,應(yīng)該依據(jù)競價(jià)購買及優(yōu)先受償規(guī)則來確定動(dòng)產(chǎn)標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬,以免破壞債權(quán)平等原則,導(dǎo)致對(duì)不同的買受人不公正現(xiàn)象的出現(xiàn)。
[Abstract]:The Supreme people's Court has made two mistakes in establishing the attribution of the subject matter of multiple transactions. One is that it has not noticed the difference between normal trading and multiple buying and selling, presupposing that the contract can actually be performed. The ownership of the subject matter must be attributed to one of the buyer's thinking patterns, which has become the ideological root of violating the principle of equality of creditor's rights, which may lead to different treatment of different buyers who have the claim of creditor's rights. The other is the lack of an accurate understanding of the legislative intent of registration antagonism as stipulated in Article 24 of the Real right Law, thereby rendering the effectiveness of registration counterproductive and endangering the security of transactions. Discourages the realization of the legislative intention to encourage buyers to register in the sale of special movable property. From the legislative point of view, we should determine the ownership of the subject matter in the multiple sale of movable property according to the following rules: first, we should determine the validity of the various contracts in the multiple sale of movable property. The sub-buyer, knowing that the seller has signed a contract for the sale of the same subject matter, no longer subdivides the sub-buyer 's subjective malice, and directly determines that the contract is null and void in accordance with the "malicious collusion" in item 2 of Article 52 of the contract Law, Even if the sub-buyer is only "only informed"; if the subject matter is not delivered, excluding its claim for title to the subject matter of movable property, if it has already been delivered, the other buyer has the right to ask it to return the subject matter. Secondly, if the subject matter of movable property has been delivered or registered, the judge can directly determine that the ownership of the subject matter of movable property belongs to the buyer who receives the delivery or obtains the registration. The reason is that the buyer who receives the delivery has already obtained the claim right of the property right superior to the other buyers, and the buyer who obtains the registration can get the priority protection based on the protection of the legislation policy to the registration public notice. Thirdly, when the seller delivers the subject matter and registers it to different buyers, they can claim the ownership of the subject matter equally because of the negative effect of registration against the delivery. The judge shall determine the ownership of the subject matter according to the rules of competitive purchase and preferential payment. Finally, in cases where each buyer has not received delivery or has been registered, the ownership of the subject matter of movable property should be determined on the basis of the rules of competitive purchase and preferential payment, so as not to undermine the principle of equality of claims. It leads to the appearance of injustice to different buyers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 景光強(qiáng);;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)解釋論——重新審視《物權(quán)法》第24條[J];法律適用;2016年06期

2 李宗錄;;登記對(duì)抗主義下多重所有權(quán)變動(dòng)論[J];法學(xué)論壇;2015年06期

3 孫毅;;我國多重買賣規(guī)則的檢討與重構(gòu)[J];法學(xué)家;2014年06期

4 戴永盛;;論特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的物權(quán)變動(dòng)與對(duì)抗(下)——兼析《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》第十條[J];東方法學(xué);2014年06期

5 戴永盛;;論特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的物權(quán)變動(dòng)與對(duì)抗(上)——兼析《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》第十條[J];東方法學(xué);2014年05期

6 石冠彬;江海;;論一物數(shù)賣合同效力與買受人權(quán)利救濟(jì)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2014年05期

7 郭志京;;也論中國物權(quán)法上的登記對(duì)抗主義[J];比較法研究;2014年03期

8 劉保玉;;論多重買賣的法律規(guī)制——兼評(píng)《買賣合同司法解釋》第9、10條[J];法學(xué)論壇;2013年06期

9 周江洪;;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣之法理——《買賣合同司法解釋》第10條評(píng)析[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期

10 程嘯;;論動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)歸屬的確定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——評(píng)最高法院買賣合同司法解釋第9、10條[J];清華法學(xué);2012年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1858452