本文選題：占有 + 占有侵害�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：占有的性質(zhì)為事實(shí)，為維護(hù)和平的社會秩序，民法一般規(guī)定占有自力救濟(jì)權(quán)和占有保護(hù)請求權(quán)以恢復(fù)占有這種事實(shí)的原來狀態(tài)，正如耶林所言，在占有之訴中，強(qiáng)盜和小偷亦受保護(hù)。但是維護(hù)社會秩序的理由不足以支撐占有損害賠償責(zé)任，占有被侵害之所以能獲得賠償，在于占有上承載的正當(dāng)性利益受到損害。 我國《物權(quán)法》第245條規(guī)定了占有損害賠償責(zé)任，但該規(guī)定及相關(guān)的法律解釋在責(zé)任性質(zhì)、責(zé)任構(gòu)成以及賠償范圍等方面卻未進(jìn)一步明確，可能導(dǎo)致法律適用中的分歧。占有損害賠償責(zé)任在性質(zhì)上屬于一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任，，但由于占有這種事實(shí)有其特殊性，必須將《物權(quán)法》關(guān)于該責(zé)任的規(guī)定與《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任相結(jié)合，才能確定其構(gòu)成要件及責(zé)任的承擔(dān)。占有損害賠償責(zé)任應(yīng)以過錯為要件，雖然占有屬于法益，但在侵權(quán)法中應(yīng)得到類似權(quán)利的保護(hù)，無論故意還是過失侵害占有都應(yīng)承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任。侵害占有是否造成損害，應(yīng)依占有上承載的正當(dāng)性利益判斷，在我國現(xiàn)行民法體系下，占有的損害僅包含有權(quán)占有在本權(quán)內(nèi)容范圍內(nèi)的使用、收益損害及善意占有人在不超越假想的占有范圍內(nèi)的使用損害，而所謂的費(fèi)用損害和責(zé)任損害其實(shí)并不存在。在賠償范圍上，還應(yīng)排除占有物自身的損害。占有損害賠償?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)存在主觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，綜合考量應(yīng)依客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而定且形式上常表現(xiàn)為占有物的市價租金。在賠償方式上，《物權(quán)法》第245條的“損害賠償”應(yīng)包括金錢賠償與恢復(fù)原狀，但對恢復(fù)原狀的適用條件必須做一定的限制。另外，對占有人的損害賠償請求權(quán)與占有人自身的其他請求權(quán)及所有權(quán)人的損害賠償請求權(quán)的關(guān)系進(jìn)行考察也具有必要性，有利于進(jìn)一步明確占有損害賠償責(zé)任的適用以供民事主體在司法實(shí)踐中作出更加有利的選擇。 本文共分為四個部分：第一部分討論占有損害賠償責(zé)任的理論基礎(chǔ)和規(guī)范基礎(chǔ)；第二部分從侵害事實(shí)、過錯、損害等方面詳細(xì)分析占有損害賠償責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件；第三部分確定占有損害賠償責(zé)任的賠償范圍、賠償方式及其與其他責(zé)任之間的關(guān)系；第四部分是本文的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:The nature of possession is a fact, and in order to maintain a peaceful social order, the civil law generally stipulates the right of possession of the right to self-relief and the right to claim protection in order to restore the original state of the fact of possession. As Yering put it, in the action of possession, Robbers and thieves are also protected. However, the reason of maintaining social order is not enough to support the liability of compensation for damage caused by possession. The reason why the infringement of possession can be compensated lies in the damage to the legitimate interests carried by possession. Article 245 of the Real right Law of our country stipulates the liability for damages of possession, but the nature of liability, the constitution of liability and the scope of compensation have not been further clarified in this provision and related legal interpretations, which may lead to differences in the application of the law. The liability for compensation for damages in possession belongs to the general tort liability in nature, but because of the particularity of the fact of possession, it is necessary to combine the provisions on the liability in the property Law with the general tort liability in the Tort liability Law. In order to determine its elements and responsibilities. Although possession belongs to legal interest, it should be protected by similar rights in tort law. Both intentional and negligent infringement of possession should be liable for compensation. Whether damage is caused by infringement or possession should be judged according to the legitimate interests carried by possession. Under the current civil law system of our country, the damage of possession includes only the use of the right to possess within the scope of the content of this right. Income damage and use damage by bona fide occupants within the limits of hypothetical possession, but the so-called expense damage and liability damage do not exist. On the scope of compensation, the damage of possession itself should be excluded. There are subjective and objective criteria for compensation for damages in possession. The comprehensive consideration should be based on objective criteria and is often expressed in the form of the market rent of possession. In the way of compensation, the "damages" in Article 245 of the Real Law should include monetary compensation and restitution, but the applicable conditions of restitution must be limited to a certain extent. In addition, it is necessary to investigate the relationship between the possessor's claim for damages and other claims of the possessor and the owner's claim for damages. It is helpful to further clarify the application of the liability for damage compensation for the civil subject to make a more favorable choice in the judicial practice. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part discusses the theoretical basis and normative basis of the liability for damages of possession, the second part analyzes the constitutive elements of the liability for compensation for damage of possession in detail from the aspects of the fact of infringement, fault, damage, etc. The third part determines the compensation scope, the way of compensation and the relationship between the compensation and other liability; the fourth part is the conclusion of this paper.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.2;D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 張新寶;郭明龍;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任請求權(quán)與不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�請求權(quán)的關(guān)系[J];私法;2008年00期

2 孫維飛;;彈性的法學(xué)移植 以侵權(quán)行為法學(xué)中“法益”學(xué)說之發(fā)展為個案的考察[J];中外法學(xué);2009年06期

3 尹田;法國物權(quán)法上的占有制度[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1997年05期

本文編號：1937238