本文選題：兇宅 + 欺詐　； 參考：《西南政法大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：現(xiàn)今,人們購房不再只關注于房屋的質(zhì)量和權(quán)屬方面的信息,購房時買受人還會考慮到房屋周邊的環(huán)境及房屋本身的住房信息,特別是在二手房的交易過程中體現(xiàn)更為明顯。隨著經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,人們的需求水平也不斷提高,房屋不能僅是滿足于抗寒保暖和遮風避雨,買受人更希望的是居住在其所購房屋內(nèi)有一種舒適、安寧的享受。但近年來,許多購買二手房的買受人這種舒適安逸夢被打破。出現(xiàn)許多購買到“兇宅”的現(xiàn)象,致買賣雙方未達成協(xié)議而起訴到法院要求撤銷房屋買賣合同、賠償損失或減少部分價款等糾紛。但由于我國法律上對“兇宅”并無明確的規(guī)定,導致各地各級法院對關于“兇宅”之類的買賣合同糾紛作出不同的判決。為打破同案不同判的現(xiàn)象、為統(tǒng)一司法實踐中的裁判標準,通過對司法實踐中兇宅交易糾紛的思考,本文從以下幾個部分重新認識兇宅交易糾紛,并提出解決兇宅交易糾紛的構(gòu)想。本文先是在第一部分通過引用案例的形式列舉了我國司法實踐中存在的依不同法律依據(jù)判決同一類“兇宅”交易案件的三種處理途徑,即依公序良俗原則、侵權(quán)責任、合同責任三種法律依據(jù)作出判決,然后提取了依據(jù)這三種處理途徑關于“兇宅”交易糾紛的理論問題。在文章的第二部分,通過對學界關于“兇宅”范圍限定的三種主流觀點進行對比分析,得出本文對“兇宅”的認定范圍,即“兇宅”應是指在房屋交易之前,在房屋內(nèi)發(fā)生或居住在房屋內(nèi)的人曾發(fā)生非正常死亡的事件,因賣方未完全告知買方這一重要事件信息,致買方得知該信息后心理產(chǎn)生極大恐懼或排斥而不能正常居住的房屋。在第二部分還對“兇宅”信息的性質(zhì)及“兇宅”信息的披露問題進行了詳細分析,總的來說,“兇宅”信息屬于自然人的隱私,但出賣人對“兇宅”信息有向特定的買受人披露的義務,出賣人應如實的告知買受人房屋的信息,全面履行自己的義務,否則其行為將違反《民法通則》第四條、《合同法》第六條、第六十條的規(guī)定,因構(gòu)成欺詐而影響房屋買賣合同的效力。在文章的第三部分,對我國司法實踐中存在的依不同法律依據(jù)判決同一類“兇宅”案件的三種處理途徑進行分析,得出處理“兇宅”交易糾紛案件應適用合同責任依據(jù)來處理并根據(jù)糾紛的不同情形作出不同判決的結(jié)論。文章的最后還提出了減少或避免再次發(fā)生“兇宅”交易糾紛的構(gòu)想,如在司法解釋中明確規(guī)定買賣雙方的信息披露義務,明確規(guī)定違反此義務后的責任承擔形式等。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, people no longer only pay attention to the quality and ownership of housing information, buyers will also take into account the housing surrounding environment and housing itself, especially in the second-hand housing transactions reflected more clearly. With the development of economy, the level of people's demand is also increasing, the house can not only be satisfied with the cold, warmth and shelter from the wind and rain, but also the buyer wants to live in the house they bought has a comfortable, peaceful enjoyment. But in recent years, many second-hand buyers of this comfortable dream was broken. There are many phenomena of purchase of "house", resulting in the buyer and seller did not reach an agreement and sued to the court to cancel the contract to buy and sell the house, compensation for loss or reduction of some of the price disputes. However, there is no clear stipulation in our country's law on the "villainy", which leads the courts at all levels to make different judgments on the disputes about the sale and purchase contract of the "villainy". In order to break the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case, in order to unify the judgment standard in the judicial practice, through the thinking of the dispute of the villainy transaction in the judicial practice, this article reunderstands the dispute of the house transaction from the following several parts. And put forward the idea of resolving the dispute of the house transaction. In the first part, the author lists three ways of dealing with the same kind of "many-house" transaction cases according to different legal basis, that is, according to the principle of public order and good custom, tort liability, which exists in the judicial practice of our country through the form of quoting cases. Three kinds of legal basis of contract liability make the judgment, then have extracted the theoretical question about the dispute of "the fierce house" transaction according to these three kinds of ways. In the second part of the article, through the comparison and analysis of the three mainstream viewpoints about the scope of "mania" in academic circles, the author draws a conclusion that the scope of this article is to identify the "villainy", that is, "villainy" should be defined before the housing transaction. An abnormal death occurred in or in the house, because the seller did not completely inform the buyer of this important event information, which caused the buyer to have great psychological fear or exclusion after learning of the information and could not live in the house normally. In the second part, the nature of the information and the disclosure of the information are analyzed in detail. In general, the information of the "house" belongs to the privacy of the natural person. However, the seller has the obligation to disclose the information of the "house" to a specific buyer, and the seller shall truthfully inform the buyer of the information of the house and fully fulfill its obligations. Otherwise, it will violate the provisions of Article 4 of the General principles of Civil Law, Article 6 of the contract Law, Article 60 of the contract Law, and affect the validity of the contract for the purchase and sale of houses because it constitutes fraud. In the third part of the article, the author analyzes the three ways to deal with the same kind of "house" cases, which exist in the judicial practice of our country according to different legal basis. It comes to the conclusion that the contract liability should be applied to deal with the disputes and make different judgments according to the different situations of the disputes. At the end of the article, the author puts forward the idea of reducing or avoiding the dispute of "villainy" transaction, such as the clear stipulation of the obligation of disclosure of information between buyer and seller in the judicial interpretation, the form of liability bearing after violating this obligation, and so on.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.6

【相似文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 王麗琴;關于“兇宅”交易糾紛之法律思考[D];西南政法大學;2015年

，

本文編號：2005294