發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-08 11:17

  本文選題：買賣型擔(dān)保 + 效力認(rèn)定��； 參考：《山西大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著市場對(duì)融資需求的增長,民間借貸中存在的以商品房買賣合同擔(dān)保借款協(xié)議的案件日益增多,我國對(duì)于該類買賣型擔(dān)保卻缺乏相應(yīng)的法律規(guī)范�！蹲罡呷嗣穹ㄔ宏P(guān)于審理民間借貸案件適用法律若干問題的規(guī)定》(以下簡稱《民間借貸司法解釋》)第24條將買賣合同擔(dān)保借款協(xié)議定性為借貸法律關(guān)系,但是該條款的模糊性仍舊無法解決審判中的爭議問題,因此對(duì)買賣型擔(dān)保效力認(rèn)定的法律問題引起理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界的廣泛關(guān)注。筆者以最高人民法院頗具爭議的兩個(gè)買賣型擔(dān)保的案例為出發(fā)點(diǎn),運(yùn)用案例分析、比較研究等方法,分析買賣型擔(dān)保效力認(rèn)定在理論和司法實(shí)踐中的分歧以及產(chǎn)生該分歧的原因,同時(shí)通過對(duì)最高人民法院《民間借貸司法解釋》第24條的規(guī)定的解讀,借鑒域外地區(qū)對(duì)買賣型擔(dān)保效力認(rèn)定的做法,理順我國當(dāng)前審理買賣型擔(dān)保案件效力認(rèn)定中的基本思路,并提出我國讓與擔(dān)保制度構(gòu)建和完善的建議。全文共分為三個(gè)部分。第一部分闡述最高人民法院經(jīng)再審判決的兩個(gè)買賣型擔(dān)保案例。兩個(gè)案例均是通過簽訂商品房買賣合同的形式來擔(dān)保借款協(xié)議,爭議焦點(diǎn)都是雙方當(dāng)事人法律關(guān)系之認(rèn)定,即借貸關(guān)系還是買賣關(guān)系以及買賣合同擔(dān)保效力的問題。盡管最高人民法院在案件審理中,通過借款協(xié)議和形成證據(jù)鏈條證明了借貸關(guān)系的存在,并最終將雙方當(dāng)事人的法律關(guān)系認(rèn)定為借貸關(guān)系,但對(duì)擔(dān)保借款協(xié)議的買賣合同效力的認(rèn)定上卻截然相反。第二部分分析買賣型擔(dān)保案件中的法律爭議問題及其產(chǎn)生的原因。對(duì)于買賣型擔(dān)保是否違反流押禁止規(guī)定、是否違反物權(quán)法定原則、是否存在通謀虛偽表示、是否屬于脫法行為、是物權(quán)擔(dān)保還是債權(quán)擔(dān)保等,理論和實(shí)踐中都存在很大分歧。究其原因,首先是理論界對(duì)于買賣型擔(dān)保的觀點(diǎn)不同:代物清償預(yù)約說主張買賣型擔(dān)保屬于債權(quán)擔(dān)保,因存在通謀虛偽意思表示及流押禁止條款而無效;后讓與擔(dān)保說主張買賣型擔(dān)保屬于物權(quán)擔(dān)保,但登記不發(fā)生所有權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)效力;讓與擔(dān)保說主張買賣型擔(dān)保符合讓與擔(dān)保要件,登記產(chǎn)生所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移效果,是否有效可參照讓與擔(dān)保相關(guān)制度認(rèn)定。立法方面,《民間借貸司法解釋》24條規(guī)定模糊,不足以應(yīng)對(duì)錯(cuò)雜的買賣型擔(dān)保效力認(rèn)定問題。第三部分對(duì)于買賣型擔(dān)保案件效力認(rèn)定中的爭議問題提出解決方案。首先,對(duì)買賣型擔(dān)保性質(zhì)應(yīng)采取讓與擔(dān)保說,相應(yīng)地提出了通過建立和完善讓與擔(dān)保制度來解決爭議問題。其次,借鑒域外地區(qū)擔(dān)保制度的相關(guān)規(guī)定。流押條款的效力方面,應(yīng)順應(yīng)世界通常的寬容態(tài)度,認(rèn)定讓與擔(dān)保的效力;物權(quán)法定主義僵硬,造成“脫法行為”的問題,采取類似臺(tái)灣的辦法,容許在一定前提下由習(xí)慣創(chuàng)設(shè);在讓與擔(dān)保的設(shè)定方面,可借鑒澳門采取“書面成立+登記對(duì)抗”模式。最后,我國應(yīng)構(gòu)建讓與擔(dān)保制度,并以此解決買賣型擔(dān)保爭議問題。具體包括:在《民法典》中確定讓與擔(dān)保制度;完善讓與擔(dān)保標(biāo)的物備案登記制度;運(yùn)用公序良俗原則解決流押條款效力問題;發(fā)布案例指導(dǎo)為讓與擔(dān)保實(shí)踐提供清晰法律規(guī)則。
[Abstract]:With the increase in the demand for financing in the market and the increasing number of cases guaranteed by the commercial housing contract in private lending, our country lacks the corresponding legal norms for this type of business type guarantee. < the Supreme People's court's provisions on the application of laws for private lending cases (hereinafter referred to as "private lending") The twenty-fourth article determines the loan agreement of the sale contract guarantee as the legal relationship of the loan, but the ambiguity of the clause still cannot solve the dispute in the trial. Therefore, the legal problem of determining the effectiveness of the purchase and sale type has aroused widespread concern in the theoretical and practical circles. The author takes the two controversial purchases by the Supreme People's court. The case of selling type guarantee is the starting point. Using the case analysis, comparative study and other methods, it analyzes the differences between the theory and the judicial practice of the confirmation of the validity of the purchase and sale type and the reasons for the difference. At the same time, through the interpretation of the twenty-fourth provisions of the Supreme People's court "the judicial interpretation of private lending" and the reference of the domain area to the sale type guarantee The practice of effectiveness identification, rationalize the basic thinking in the validity of our country's current trial of sale type guarantee case, and put forward the proposal of construction and perfection of our country's guarantee system. The full text is divided into three parts. The first part expounds the two cases of sale guarantee of the Supreme People's court by retrial. The two cases are all through signing business. To guarantee the loan agreement in the form of a contract of purchase and sale, the focus of the dispute is the identification of the legal relationship between the parties, that is, the relationship between the borrowing and selling, and the validity of the guarantee for the sale of the contract. Although the Supreme People's court has proved the existence of the loan relationship through the loan agreement and the chain of evidence in the case, the Supreme People's court has proved the existence of the loan relationship and finally the final result. The legal relationship between the two parties is identified as a loan relationship, but the validity of the contract for the purchase and sale of the secured loan agreement is completely opposite. The second part analyzes the legal disputes in the case of the sale type guarantee and the reasons for it. Whether it violates the legal principle of the property right or not, whether it violates the prohibition of the mortgage and whether it violates the legal principle of real right, Whether there is a conspiracy of hypocrisy, whether it belongs to the act of taking off the law, is a real right guarantee or a creditor's right guarantee, and so on. There are great differences in both theory and practice. The reason is that the first is the difference between the theory and the business type guarantee. The prohibition clause is invalid; the post transfer guarantee claims that the sale type guarantee belongs to the real right guarantee, but the registration does not have the effect of ownership transfer; the transfer guarantee claims that the transaction type guarantee conforms to the requisites of the transfer guarantee, the registration produces the effect of transfer of ownership, whether it can be effectively referenced to the system of transfer guarantee. The law explains that the >24 article is vague and is not enough to deal with the problem of determining the effectiveness of the business type guarantee. The third part puts forward the solution to the dispute problem in the validity of the sale type guarantee case. First, we should adopt the transfer guarantee for the nature of the guarantee of the sale type, and accordingly put forward to solve the dispute through the establishment and perfection of the system of transfer guarantee. Secondly, with reference to the relevant provisions of the security system in the field area, the validity of the clause should conform to the general tolerance of the world and determine the effectiveness of the transfer guarantee; the legal doctrine of real right is rigid and causes the problem of "act of removing the law", which is similar to Taiwan, allowing it to be created by habit under a certain premise; in transfer guarantee In the aspect of setting, we can draw on the model of "written establishment + registration confrontation" in Macao. Finally, our country should construct the system of transfer guarantee and solve the problem of transaction type guarantee dispute. Issue case guidance provides clear legal rules for transfer guarantee practice.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王春梅;;亂象與治理:買賣型擔(dān)保之定性分析——以最高人民法院的判決為視角[J];河南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年05期

2 楊代雄;;借名購房及借名登記中的物權(quán)變動(dòng)[J];法學(xué);2016年08期

3 楊翱宇;;民法典編纂背景下讓與擔(dān)保入法問題研究:范疇、爭議與價(jià)值衡量[J];齊齊哈爾大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年07期

4 董新輝;;后讓與擔(dān)保的重新解讀——以《民間借貸司法解釋》第二十四條為中心[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2016年07期

5 莊加園;;“買賣型擔(dān)�！迸c流押條款的效力——《民間借貸規(guī)定》第24條的解讀[J];清華法學(xué);2016年03期

6 濟(jì)南市中級(jí)人民法院課題組;劉延杰;;買賣式擔(dān)保的實(shí)踐類型與裁判規(guī)則研究[J];山東審判;2016年02期

7 陳定良;王黎明;;以商品房買賣擔(dān)保借貸合同的性質(zhì)及效力[J];人民司法(案例);2016年11期

8 張偉;;買賣合同擔(dān)保民間借貸合同的解釋論——以法釋〔2015〕18號(hào)第24條為中心[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2016年02期

9 張海鵬;;擔(dān)保性房屋買賣合同法律性質(zhì)之探析——兼析《民間借貸司法解釋》第24條[J];東方法學(xué);2016年02期

10 章曉英;;“以房抵債”與抵銷預(yù)約——《最高人民法院公報(bào)》載“朱俊芳案”評(píng)釋[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2016年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1861178