本文選題：原物返還請求權(quán) + 占有返還請求權(quán)�。� 參考：《天津師范大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：返還請求權(quán)制度以羅馬法時期的對物訴訟制度為其公認(rèn)之萌芽,啟蒙運動時期,羅馬法重新發(fā)現(xiàn),法國民法對其全面繼受并進(jìn)行了改良,該制度的最終確立,得益于《德國民法典》的探索和最終制定,德國理論與學(xué)術(shù)界對于請求權(quán)制度的研究頗為深入,取得的豐碩成果在《德國民法典》中得以全面闡釋,大陸法系國家的民法理論大多深受該部法典的影響。 返還請求權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件是將其理論體系化的重要基礎(chǔ),文章在對我國物權(quán)法中兩種返還請求權(quán)進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)化梳理,并借鑒德、日、臺民法理論和立法例,在共性的判斷規(guī)則基礎(chǔ)之上,根據(jù)原物返還請求權(quán)和占有返還請求權(quán)的權(quán)利特性,分別對其進(jìn)行了梳理,將構(gòu)成要件總結(jié)為請求權(quán)、相對人和請求內(nèi)容三個部分。以物權(quán)之權(quán)利人及占有人作為兩種請求權(quán)的權(quán)利人,該物權(quán)人既包括所有權(quán)人亦包含具有占有權(quán)能之他物權(quán)人；以無權(quán)占有人和侵占人分別是兩種返還請求權(quán)的相對入,該無權(quán)占有及侵占須具有現(xiàn)實性、延續(xù)性；最后,請求權(quán)的內(nèi)容包含請求行為、原物返還、孳息返還及負(fù)擔(dān)相應(yīng)費用。 在我國現(xiàn)行法上,物權(quán)救濟(jì)模式存在著物權(quán)請求權(quán)規(guī)則和侵權(quán)責(zé)任規(guī)則及競合規(guī)則。既在物權(quán)法中規(guī)定了返還原物請求權(quán),也在侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中將其規(guī)定為侵權(quán)責(zé)任�；谶@種雙軌并行的體系中,司法實踐中有的就會認(rèn)定返還原物請求權(quán)為物上請求權(quán),有時則認(rèn)為其應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)侵權(quán)責(zé)任予以適用。但基于兩者的制度內(nèi)容及功能特點,物權(quán)請求權(quán)因其構(gòu)成要件具有的抽象性,對所有權(quán)、物權(quán)的保護(hù)更加全面,反之,作為侵權(quán)責(zé)任中的返還財產(chǎn),對所有權(quán)人與實際占有人相分離的情形難以全面救濟(jì),造成法律效果上的失衡。當(dāng)物權(quán)遭受第三人侵害、妨礙及遇有妨礙之風(fēng)險時,抑或物權(quán)法與侵權(quán)責(zé)任法發(fā)生競合之時,物權(quán)法之物上請求權(quán)規(guī)則應(yīng)優(yōu)先于侵權(quán)責(zé)任規(guī)則予以適用。因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)僅保留物權(quán)法上的返還原物請求權(quán),取消侵權(quán)責(zé)任法上返還財產(chǎn)請求權(quán)。 本文分為導(dǎo)言、正文、結(jié)語三部分,對正文部分分為五章進(jìn)行闡述。
[Abstract]:The system of restitution claim takes the litigation system in rem of Roman law as its recognized bud. During the Enlightenment period, Roman law rediscovered that the French civil law had completely accepted and improved it, and the system was finally established. Thanks to the exploration and final formulation of the German Civil Code, the theoretical and academic research on the right of claim system in Germany is rather thorough, and the fruitful results achieved in the German Civil Code have been fully explained. Most civil law theories in civil law countries are deeply influenced by this code. The constitutive elements of the right to return claim are the important basis for systematizing its theory. This paper systematizes the two kinds of claim rights of restitution in real right law of our country, and draws lessons from the theories and legislative examples of the civil law of Germany, Japan and Taiwan. On the basis of common judgment rules, according to the right characteristics of restitution of original things and the right of restitution of possession, the author combs them separately and sums up the constitutive elements as three parts: the right of claim, the relative person and the content of request. The obligee and the possessor of real right are the right holders of two kinds of claims, which include both the owner and the other real right with the power of possession, so that the unauthorized possessor and the occupier are the opposite of the two kinds of right to return the claim, Finally, the contents of the right of claim include the request act, the return of the original property, the return of fruits and the corresponding expenses. In the current law of our country, there are rules of right of claim in real right, rules of tort liability and rules of concurrence in the mode of real right relief. Not only the right of return of original property is stipulated in the law of real right, but also the right of tort liability is stipulated in the law of tort liability. Based on this two-track parallel system, some people in judicial practice will regard the right of restitution of original things as the right of claim in substance, and sometimes think that it should be applied on the basis of tort liability. However, based on the system content and functional characteristics of both, the right of claim of real right is more comprehensive to the protection of ownership and real right because of the abstract nature of its constituent elements. On the contrary, it is the return of property in tort liability. It is difficult to remedy the separation of the owner from the real possessor, which results in the imbalance of the legal effect. When the real right is infringed by the third party, obstructs and has the risk of obstruction, or when the property law and the tort liability law are competing, the rule of claim on the property law should be applied in preference to the tort liability rule. Therefore, the right to return original property should be reserved only in the law of real rights, and the right of claim for return of property in the law of tort liability should be cancelled. This paper is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The text is divided into five chapters.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 金可可;論溫德沙伊德的請求權(quán)概念[J];比較法研究;2005年03期

2 崔建遠(yuǎn);關(guān)于恢復(fù)原狀、返還財產(chǎn)的辨析[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2005年01期

3 湯勇;;物權(quán)請求權(quán)行使的正當(dāng)性及其限度[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2009年02期

4 隋彭生;;論占有之本權(quán)[J];法商研究;2011年02期

5 王洪亮;;原物返還請求權(quán)構(gòu)成解釋論[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2011年04期

6 左傳衛(wèi);;論原物返還請求權(quán)的性質(zhì)認(rèn)定及其法律適用[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2011年01期

7 朱淼;;事實與權(quán)利——占有性質(zhì)分析[J];河南科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2012年02期

8 孟勤國;許軍;;物權(quán)法中“返還原物”的界定辨析[J];華東師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2012年04期

9 崔建遠(yuǎn);;論物權(quán)救濟(jì)模式的選擇及其依據(jù)[J];清華大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2007年03期

10 魏振瀛;;論返還原物責(zé)任請求權(quán) 兼與所有物返還請求權(quán)比較研究[J];中外法學(xué);2011年06期

，

本文編號：2050502