本文選題：集體成員 + 撤銷權(quán)��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán),是農(nóng)村集體成員對(duì)集體組織或其負(fù)責(zé)人侵害其合法權(quán)益的決定,可以請(qǐng)求人民法院予以撤銷的權(quán)利。該權(quán)利在一定程度上改變了農(nóng)村集體經(jīng)濟(jì)組織、村民委員會(huì)及其負(fù)責(zé)人任意侵害集體成員合法權(quán)益的狀況。但是,《物權(quán)法》對(duì)農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán)的規(guī)定并不完善,主體存在缺失,權(quán)利行使期限也沒(méi)有明確;同時(shí),在該權(quán)利的適用過(guò)程中,對(duì)撤銷事由和撤銷對(duì)象有不同的理解,判決類型也存在多種形式。這不僅削弱了法律的權(quán)威,更不利于充分保障農(nóng)村集體成員的合法權(quán)益,必須加以完善。本文主要通過(guò)對(duì)比的方式來(lái)凸顯上述問(wèn)題,繼而從理論和適用兩個(gè)方面解決問(wèn)題,在此思路的指導(dǎo)下,全文分三個(gè)部分對(duì)農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán)予以探討。第一部分,將農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán)與債權(quán)人撤銷權(quán)、股東撤銷權(quán)、業(yè)主撤銷權(quán)予以對(duì)比,展示各個(gè)撤銷權(quán)在主體、期限、撤銷事由、撤銷對(duì)象上的不同,尋找問(wèn)題的突破口,說(shuō)明集體成員撤銷權(quán)可以借鑒的制度。第二部分,重點(diǎn)探討農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán)理論上的完善。主要包括該權(quán)利的主體和期限。主體方面:原告方中,盡管法律規(guī)定只有集體成員才可以在訴訟中成為原告,但結(jié)合司法實(shí)際,村民小組集體也應(yīng)具備原告資格,因?yàn)橄鄬?duì)于村集體而言,村民小組集體也類似于集體成員。但訴訟中,應(yīng)由村民小組作為代表參加訴訟;被告方中,村民會(huì)議不宜成為撤銷之訴的被告。對(duì)于侵害集體成員合法權(quán)益的村民會(huì)議的決定,可以通過(guò)行政訴訟等途徑解決。期限方面,物權(quán)法并沒(méi)有規(guī)定成員撤銷權(quán)的行使期限,參考股東撤銷權(quán)的規(guī)定,考慮成員撤銷權(quán)涉及人數(shù)眾多,建議期限為“知道或應(yīng)當(dāng)知道撤銷事由之日起60天內(nèi)”。第三部分,重點(diǎn)探討農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán)適用中的誤區(qū)。主要包括撤銷事由、撤銷權(quán)對(duì)象、判決類型。撤銷事由方面,法律規(guī)定“侵害集體成員合法權(quán)益”,筆者認(rèn)為該事由不以實(shí)際損害的發(fā)生為標(biāo)準(zhǔn),并且不用細(xì)化為實(shí)體權(quán)益和程序權(quán)益,但范圍僅限于成員個(gè)人權(quán)益,而不能擴(kuò)大至集體的權(quán)益。在撤銷對(duì)象方面,法律規(guī)定為“決定”,但實(shí)踐中卻將該權(quán)利擴(kuò)大適用到了“合同”,用撤銷權(quán)來(lái)否決合同效力。顯然,“決定”與“合同”存在本質(zhì)區(qū)別,不能以撤銷決定為依據(jù),直接判定合同無(wú)效。在判決類型方面,通過(guò)分析不予審理、直接改判、責(zé)令重做、二次判決四種判決形式,可知只有責(zé)令重做,才最有利于協(xié)調(diào)司法救濟(jì)與村民自治間的關(guān)系。通過(guò)理論完善和合理適用,希望農(nóng)村集體成員撤銷權(quán)能更有效的維護(hù)集體成員的合法權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:The cancellation right of rural collective members is the right of rural collective members to revoke the rights and interests of collective organizations or their responsible persons, which can be revoked by the people's courts. To a certain extent, this right has changed the situation of collective economic organizations, villagers' committees and their responsible persons infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of collective members. However, the provisions of the property Law on the cancellation right of the rural collective members are not perfect, the main body is missing, and the time limit for the exercise of the right is not clear. At the same time, in the process of application of the right, there are different understandings of the reason of revocation and the object of revocation. There are also many forms of decision types. This not only weakens the authority of the law, but also is not conducive to the full protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the rural collective members. This paper mainly through the way of contrast to highlight the above problems, and then from the theory and application of two aspects to solve the problem, under the guidance of this idea, the full text is divided into three parts to rural collective members to cancel the right to discuss. The first part compares the cancellation rights of rural collective members with those of creditors, shareholders and owners, and shows the differences in the main body, the time limit, the reason of revocation, the object of revocation, and the breach of the problem. Explain the system that collective member cancels right to draw lessons from. The second part focuses on the theoretical perfection of the cancellation right of rural collective members. It mainly includes the subject and duration of the right. Subject: although the law stipulates that only the collective members can be plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the villagers' collective should also have the qualification of the plaintiff in the light of the judicial practice, because compared to the Yu Cun collective, the villagers' collective should also have the qualification of the plaintiff. Village groups are also similar to collective members. However, the villagers' group should take part in the lawsuit, and the villagers' meeting should not be the defendant. The decision of villagers' meeting that infringes the lawful rights and interests of collective members can be resolved through administrative litigation and so on. In terms of the time limit, the law of real right does not stipulate the time limit for the exercise of the member's right of revocation. Referring to the provisions of the shareholders' right of revocation, the author considers that the member's right of revocation involves a large number of people, and the suggested time limit is "within 60 days from the date of knowing or should know the reason of the revocation". The third part focuses on the misunderstandings in the application of the cancellation right of the rural collective members. It mainly includes the reason of revocation, the object of revocation right and the type of judgment. In terms of the reason of revocation, the law stipulates that "the legitimate rights and interests of collective members are infringed upon". The author believes that the cause is not based on the occurrence of actual damage and does not need to be refined into substantive and procedural rights and interests, but the scope is limited to the individual rights and interests of members. It cannot be extended to collective rights and interests. In the aspect of the object of revocation, the law stipulates "decision", but in practice the right is extended to "contract", and the validity of the contract is denied with the right of rescission. Obviously, "decision" and "contract" have essential difference. In terms of the type of judgment, through the analysis of the non-trial, the direct revision of the sentence, the order to do again, the second judgment of four forms of judgment, we can see that only order to do again, the most conducive to coordinate the relationship between judicial relief and villager autonomy. Through theoretical perfection and reasonable application, it is hoped that the cancellation right of rural collective members can safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of collective members more effectively.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 林清高;撤銷權(quán)探析[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問(wèn)題研究;2001年11期

2 汪全勝;論立法撤銷權(quán)[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)研究;2001年04期

3 明濟(jì)本;論撤銷權(quán)[J];河南財(cái)政稅務(wù)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2001年05期

4 李蕊,程玉桐;談合同中撤銷權(quán)的行使[J];工會(huì)論壇(山東省工會(huì)管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2001年03期

5 劉萍 ,梁維;撤銷權(quán)不行使 過(guò)期將會(huì)作廢[J];企業(yè)導(dǎo)報(bào);2001年02期

6 王雅娟;;論債權(quán)人的撤銷權(quán)[J];天山論壇;2001年Z2期

7 ;哪些情況可以通過(guò)行使撤銷權(quán)來(lái)保全債權(quán)[J];金融法苑;2001年04期

8 胡正勇;積極運(yùn)用撤銷權(quán)理論 依法維護(hù)企業(yè)債權(quán)[J];鐵道物資科學(xué)管理;2002年06期

9 方基志;我國(guó)《合同法》中撤銷權(quán)制度辨析及完善[J];襄樊職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

10 陳小力 ,張培建;債主討債可行使撤銷權(quán)[J];鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)論壇;2002年09期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 管洪彥;;淺論農(nóng)村集體經(jīng)濟(jì)組織成員撤銷權(quán)的性質(zhì)與行使——以《物權(quán)法》第63條第2款為中心[A];2011年第二屆全國(guó)民商法學(xué)博士生學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要集[C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 魯書(shū)賓;慎重看待合同的撤銷權(quán)[N];中國(guó)黃金報(bào);2009年

2 李世民;合同法債之撤銷權(quán)的行使[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

3 段東輝;撤銷權(quán)的“用武之地”[N];上海金融報(bào);2004年

4 吳峰 靳德華;購(gòu)車不符仍上路,還有撤銷權(quán)嗎？[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

5 張明芳;撤銷權(quán)行使中應(yīng)注意的問(wèn)題[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

6 黃金波;以行為放棄撤銷權(quán)后不得再次申請(qǐng)?jiān)摍?quán)利[N];人民法院報(bào);2006年

7 成林;撤銷權(quán)的行使效力[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

8 魯書(shū)賓;慎重看待合同的撤銷權(quán)[N];中國(guó)黃金報(bào);2009年

9 宋崇宇;強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行程序中對(duì)于撤銷權(quán)的運(yùn)用[N];中國(guó)貿(mào)易報(bào);2010年

10 潘林;撤銷權(quán)的構(gòu)成與行使[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 秦國(guó)輝;要約撤銷權(quán)正當(dāng)性檢討[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 聶光海;論保全撤銷權(quán)制度及其完善[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

2 易宇;合同法上的撤銷權(quán)比較分析[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

3 洪璞;論債權(quán)人的撤銷權(quán)[D];鄭州大學(xué);2003年

4 張翔宇;撤銷權(quán)訴訟研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2011年

5 吳捚;中獎(jiǎng)允諾的法律性質(zhì)及撤銷權(quán)研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

6 范志毅;消費(fèi)者撤銷權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

7 王彥明;論合同法中的撤銷權(quán)[D];四川大學(xué);2005年

8 李懷勝;論債權(quán)人的撤銷權(quán)[D];四川大學(xué);2002年

9 唐小香;“中國(guó)黃金第一案”評(píng)析[D];湖南大學(xué);2013年

10 陳慶;論債權(quán)人的撤銷權(quán)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：1948604