本文選題：機(jī)動(dòng)車 + 所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式��； 參考：《鄭州大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：《物權(quán)法》頒布之前,我國(guó)各項(xiàng)法律法規(guī)都未規(guī)定機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,2007年《物權(quán)法》第二十四條雖然規(guī)定了機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)的對(duì)抗要件,卻并未規(guī)定其生效要件,2012年出臺(tái)的司法解釋對(duì)該問題也未予以明確說明。筆者認(rèn)為,對(duì)《物權(quán)法》第二十四條的解釋應(yīng)當(dāng)在吸收他國(guó)相關(guān)經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,選擇一種理論上完善、實(shí)踐中可行的機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式。本文共分為三個(gè)部分:第一部分是我國(guó)關(guān)于機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)的立法現(xiàn)狀與理論爭(zhēng)執(zhí)。我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》第二十四條只規(guī)定了機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)的對(duì)抗要件,并未規(guī)定其生效要件,之后出臺(tái)的相關(guān)司法解釋對(duì)該問題也未予以明確說明。針對(duì)第二十四條,我國(guó)存在兩種學(xué)理解釋,一種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為其規(guī)定了混合主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,另一種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為其規(guī)定了公示對(duì)抗主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,前者的弊端為我國(guó)大多數(shù)學(xué)者所公認(rèn),在對(duì)機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式問題進(jìn)行思考時(shí),有學(xué)者提出應(yīng)摒棄第二十四條的做法,直接采公示要件主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式。第二部分是機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)之選擇。首先,闡述了機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式的理論基礎(chǔ),筆者認(rèn)為,機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式不是一個(gè)孤立的概念,而是一個(gè)理論體系,其客觀表達(dá)為公示公信原則,主觀表達(dá)為善意取得制度;其次,對(duì)大陸法系各國(guó)關(guān)于機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式的立法例進(jìn)行比較分析,分別論述了意思主義、形式主義的基本理論及其對(duì)機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)變動(dòng)的影響。之后,筆者提出了自己的觀點(diǎn):我國(guó)不應(yīng)采公示要件主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,而應(yīng)該采公示對(duì)抗主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式。第三部分是我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》第二十四條之法律適用研究。首先,對(duì)第二十四條進(jìn)行法解釋,筆者認(rèn)為《物權(quán)法》第二十四條規(guī)定了登記對(duì)抗主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式,分別從公示方式、公示效力、不登記不得對(duì)抗“善意第三人”的范圍三方面予以論述。其次,對(duì)《物權(quán)法》第二十四條在法律實(shí)踐中的適用進(jìn)行分析,一物二賣是理論界用以比較各種物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式優(yōu)劣最恰當(dāng)、最易理解的案例,與混合主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式相比,若出現(xiàn)一車二賣的情形,采行登記對(duì)抗主義物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式更有利于保護(hù)各方當(dāng)事人的利益,也有利于裁判者迅速做出較為明晰的判斷。最后,對(duì)《物權(quán)法》第二十四條法律適用的完善提出建議,筆者認(rèn)為,應(yīng)當(dāng)建立并完善機(jī)動(dòng)車所有權(quán)登記制度。
[Abstract]:Before the promulgation of the property Law, all laws and regulations of our country did not stipulate the mode of vehicle ownership change. Article 24 of the 2007 property Law stipulates the antagonistic elements of the change of motor vehicle ownership. But it does not provide for its entry into force, and the 2012 judicial interpretation did not specify the issue. The author holds that the interpretation of Article 24 of the Real right Law should be based on absorbing the relevant experiences of other countries and choose a mode of vehicle ownership change which is perfect in theory and feasible in practice. This paper is divided into three parts: the first part is the legislative status quo and theoretical dispute about motor vehicle ownership change in China. Article 24 of the property Law of our country only stipulates the antagonistic elements of the change of the ownership of motor vehicles, and does not stipulate the requirements of its validity, and the related judicial explanations issued after that have not clearly explained the problem. In view of Article 24, there are two theoretical interpretations in our country, one is that it prescribes a mixed mode of real right change, the other is that it prescribes the mode of public adversarial real right change. The former's malpractice is recognized by most scholars in our country. When thinking about the mode of motor vehicle ownership change, some scholars put forward that the practice of Article 24 should be abandoned and the mode of real right change of public document doctrine should be adopted directly. The second part is the choice of motor vehicle ownership change. First of all, the author expounds the theoretical basis of the motor vehicle ownership change mode. The author believes that the motor vehicle ownership change mode is not an isolated concept, but a theoretical system, and its objective expression is the principle of publicity and public confidence. The subjective expression is the system of bona fide acquisition. Secondly, the comparative analysis is made on the legislation cases of the motor vehicle ownership change model in the countries of the continental law system, and the meaning doctrine is discussed respectively. The basic theory of formalism and its influence on the change of motor vehicle ownership. After that, the author puts forward his own point of view: our country should not adopt the mode of real right change of publicity elements doctrine, but should adopt the mode of real right change of publicity antagonism. The third part is the study of the application of the law in Article 24 of the Real right Law of China. First of all, the article 24 is interpreted by law. The author thinks that article 24 of Real right Law stipulates the mode of real right change of registration antagonism, respectively from the mode of publicity and the effectiveness of publicity. No registration shall be made against "bona fide third party" in three aspects. Secondly, this paper analyzes the application of Article 24 of Real right Law in legal practice. One thing and two sales are the most appropriate and easy to understand cases to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various modes of real right change in the theoretical circle, compared with the mixed mode of real right change. If there is a situation of "one car and two selling", the adoption of registration adversarial real right change mode is more conducive to the protection of the interests of the parties concerned, but also conducive to the referee to quickly make a more clear judgment. Finally, the author puts forward some suggestions on the perfection of the application of Article 24 of the Real right Law. The author thinks that the registration system of motor vehicle ownership should be established and perfected.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 董學(xué)立;;對(duì)法國(guó)物權(quán)變動(dòng)債權(quán)意思主義的再思考[J];北方法學(xué);2014年03期

2 龍俊;;中國(guó)物權(quán)法上的登記對(duì)抗主義[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年05期

3 劉經(jīng)靖;評(píng)《中華人民共和國(guó)物權(quán)法(草案)》的物權(quán)變動(dòng)二元結(jié)構(gòu)[J];煙臺(tái)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1919968