本文選題：特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn) + 所有權(quán)變動(dòng)�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)又被稱(chēng)為“準(zhǔn)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)”,我國(guó)法律法規(guī)并未對(duì)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)做出確切定義,只是采取列舉方式確定了其外延,特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)包括機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)、船舶及航空器等�！段餀�(quán)法》、《買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同司法解釋》以及《機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)登記規(guī)定》、《船舶登記條例》等針對(duì)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的行政法規(guī)、規(guī)章均規(guī)定了特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)采“交付生效+登記對(duì)抗”模式,此模式為我國(guó)獨(dú)創(chuàng),實(shí)則大陸法系兩大物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式的混合,而這一混合是特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則出現(xiàn)諸多問(wèn)題和矛盾的邏輯起始點(diǎn)。我國(guó)現(xiàn)有特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式面臨的邏輯困境主要有三:其一,“登記作用虛無(wú)化”,“不經(jīng)登記,不得對(duì)抗善意第三人”的規(guī)定只有在特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)經(jīng)占有改定方式進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)移的情形下才具有實(shí)際意義,在其他情形下均無(wú)實(shí)際適用余地;其二,“公信力體系混亂”,目前法律同時(shí)適用均具有權(quán)利表征作用的兩種不同的公示方式將造成該兩種公示方式之間效力的沖突,在目前特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)采“交付生效+登記對(duì)抗”的獨(dú)特模式下,登記的實(shí)質(zhì)作用微乎其微,一方面不利于第三人信賴(lài)?yán)娴谋Ｗo(hù),另一方面也使得特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的公示體系混亂,導(dǎo)致第三人主觀善意與惡意缺乏判斷的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),無(wú)法建立起有效的特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)公示制度;其三,“登記連續(xù)性中斷”,登記的非必要性,加之登記的非強(qiáng)制性,必然會(huì)帶來(lái)登記的非連續(xù)性,登記的非連續(xù)性反之又會(huì)直接影響登記公示效力的發(fā)揮,一旦登記中斷,則必然會(huì)出現(xiàn)登記名義人和真實(shí)權(quán)利人不一致的情形。而產(chǎn)生上述邏輯窘境的原因主要有二:第一,登記的邏輯起點(diǎn)認(rèn)識(shí)錯(cuò)誤,在權(quán)利人與權(quán)利外觀人本就實(shí)現(xiàn)了一致的前提下,無(wú)需另外引進(jìn)一套權(quán)利外觀以證明權(quán)屬歸屬,但是在本權(quán)與外觀已經(jīng)實(shí)現(xiàn)了一致的前提下,法律又引進(jìn)了一個(gè)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的表征方式——登記,這一過(guò)猶不及的規(guī)定使得特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)出現(xiàn)兩個(gè)權(quán)利外觀——占有和登記,反而使得外界對(duì)于特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的表征方式產(chǎn)生疑惑;第二,登記的法律效果定位錯(cuò)誤,登記是國(guó)家公權(quán)力介入而進(jìn)行的行為,法定性、程序性等特征決定其應(yīng)更具準(zhǔn)確性、權(quán)威性,因此登記的公示效力應(yīng)該強(qiáng)于占有的公示效力,登記不僅應(yīng)具有權(quán)利推定效力,還應(yīng)具有權(quán)利形成效力。從特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的特殊屬性分析,登記公示方式要優(yōu)于占有公示方式,且從我國(guó)法律制度傳統(tǒng)及現(xiàn)有客觀制度背景出發(fā),我國(guó)宜采取形式主義,不宜采取意思主義,為了交易安全及效率考慮,宜采登記要件主義模式,在確定特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式的前提下,應(yīng)該完善相應(yīng)配套法律制度。
[Abstract]:The special movable property is also called "quasi-immovable property". The laws and regulations of our country do not define the special movable property exactly, but use enumeration method to determine its extension, and the special movable property includes motor vehicle. Administrative regulations on special movable property, such as the Law on property, the Judicial interpretation of the contract of purchase and purchase, the provisions on the Registration of Motor vehicles, and the regulations on ship Registration, etc. The regulations stipulate that the change of ownership of special movable property adopts the mode of "delivery and effective registration antagonism", which is the original creation of our country. In fact, it is the mixture of the two modes of real right change in the civil law system. This mixture is the logical starting point of many problems and contradictions in the rules of change of ownership of special movable property. There are three main logical dilemmas facing the current mode of change of ownership of special movable property in our country: first, "nothingness of registration function", "without registration," The provision that "shall not be against bona fide third parties" is of practical significance only if the special movable property is transferred by the means of possession and determination, and there is no practical room for application in any other case; secondly, the "credibility system is chaotic," At present, the application of two different modes of publicity, both of which have the function of representation of rights, will result in a conflict of effectiveness between the two modes of publicity, under the unique mode of "delivery and effective registration antagonism" in the present special movable property. On the one hand, it is not conducive to the protection of the trust interests of the third party, on the other hand, it also causes confusion of the public display system of the ownership of special movable property, which leads to the third party's subjective goodwill and malice lack the judgment standard. It is impossible to establish an effective system of publicizing the ownership of special movable property. Thirdly, the "continuity of registration", the non-necessity of registration, and the non-mandatory nature of registration will inevitably bring about discontinuity of registration. In turn, the discontinuity of registration will directly affect the effectiveness of public registration. Once registration is interrupted, there will inevitably be a discrepancy between the registered nominal person and the real right holder. There are two main reasons for the above logic dilemma: first, the logic starting point of registration is wrong. Under the premise that the right owner and the right appearance person have realized the same, it is not necessary to introduce a set of rights appearance to prove the ownership of the right. However, on the premise that this right and appearance have been consistent, the law has introduced a special form of representation of the title of movable property-registration. This excessive regulation makes the ownership of special movable property appear two rights appearance-possession and registration, on the contrary, makes the outside world doubt about the expression of the ownership of special movable property. Second, the legal effect of registration is wrong. Registration is an act carried out by the public power of the state. The legal and procedural characteristics decide that the registration should be more accurate and authoritative. Therefore, the effectiveness of public registration should be stronger than that of possession, and registration should not only have the effect of presumption of right. It should also have the effect of forming rights. From the analysis of the special attribute of special movable property, the way of registering public notice should be superior to that of possession, and proceeding from the tradition of our legal system and the background of existing objective system, our country should adopt formalism rather than will doctrine. In order to consider the security and efficiency of transaction, it is appropriate to adopt the registration essentialism mode. On the premise of determining the changing mode of ownership of special movable property, the corresponding supporting legal system should be perfected.
【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(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉江琴;論動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)合同移轉(zhuǎn)的行為生效要件[J];濰坊學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

2 楊奎臣;李婧;;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)保留約款的效力及公示制度完善[J];前沿;2011年11期

3 張建英;;論動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的善意取得制度[J];四川省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年01期

4 劉江琴,李克舉;動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)合同移轉(zhuǎn)模式的比較法研究[J];荊州師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期

5 И·А·波克羅夫斯基;張建文;付子堂;;論所有權(quán)問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年11期

6 陳益青;;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)的公示方法探析——兼評(píng)我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》第24條[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2013年01期

7 雷蕾;分期付款買(mǎi)賣(mài)中動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)保留制度評(píng)析[J];洛陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年05期

8 屈茂輝;關(guān)于物權(quán)法制定中動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)原始取得方法的探討[J];湖南師范大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1997年03期

9 尹德常;;論裝修物的法律屬性[J];山東審判(山東法官培訓(xùn)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2006年03期

10 金英潔;;我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》設(shè)立先占制度的必要性[J];合作經(jīng)濟(jì)與科技;2008年12期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 海南省高級(jí)人民法院 余德厚 海南省洋浦經(jīng)濟(jì)開(kāi)發(fā)區(qū)人民法院 袁晶 廖長(zhǎng)榮;以登記方式管理的 動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的確定[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 河南省孟州市人民法院 趙國(guó)勇邋楊海波;執(zhí)行中特定動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)之確定[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 宋紅暢;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)變動(dòng)模式研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

2 張長(zhǎng)青;我國(guó)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

3 李百主;特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)取得中的交付與登記[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

4 張麒麟;動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)保留制度探究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1990769