本文選題：住宅 + 商用��； 參考：《重慶大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：自上世紀80年代末,我國的市場經濟快速蓬勃發(fā)展。為了在競爭激烈的市場經濟中獲取一席之地,越來越多的中小型企業(yè)或者個體戶都力圖使成本最小化而利潤最大化。同時,國有體制改革、市場競爭愈發(fā)激烈等原因導致了下崗職工增加,從而使社會經濟壓力、就業(yè)壓力不斷增加。越來越多的城市業(yè)主將房屋從住宅用途改變?yōu)樯虡I(yè)用途或辦公用途,這就是所謂的“住改商”�！白「纳獭钡某霈F(xiàn)不僅給居民的日常生活帶來了極大便利,而且推動了中小型企業(yè)迅猛發(fā)展,帶動就業(yè),減輕政府的壓力,同時也實現(xiàn)了城市功能適度混合布局。當然,隨之也引發(fā)了一系列的問題,“住改商”過多占用了居住小區(qū)的公共配套資源,容易影響小區(qū)的居住環(huán)境,也給國家財政收入造成損失�？偟膩碚f,“住改商”的產生和發(fā)展符合市場經濟趨勢,應當引導“住改商”業(yè)主合理行使改變住宅用途的權利,積極履行相應的法律義務。目前,我國的《物權法》等法律、相關司法解釋以及地方性法規(guī)中,雖然都存在關于“住改商”的相關規(guī)定,但并不完善,缺乏可操作性。歸納下來:“住改商”存在的法律問題主要有以下三個方面:其一,界定利害關系業(yè)主范圍的標準不合理。其二,利害關系業(yè)主同意規(guī)則制度設計不科學。其三,缺乏相關規(guī)定統(tǒng)一且合理的限制經營范圍。本文通過對“住改商”法律問題進行剖析,對完善“住改商”立法提出建議。首先,應當明確界定利害關系業(yè)主的法理標準,根據(jù)此標準厘清利害關系業(yè)主的范圍,即本棟建筑物內的業(yè)主和能夠證明有利害關系的其他業(yè)主,排除掉“住改商”業(yè)主能夠證明自己的經營活動不會給本棟建筑物內的業(yè)主造成不利影響的情況,同時,物業(yè)使用人也應當涵蓋在業(yè)主范圍內。其次,采納“多數(shù)決”和緊鄰業(yè)主“全票決”相結合的方式,以書面形式表決通過“住改商”行為,建議由業(yè)主委員會或物業(yè)管理公司作為主體按照一定的程序代為征求利害關系業(yè)主同意。最后,在尊重限制經營范圍之原則的前提下,以立法的方式,限制在住宅區(qū)內從事嚴重影響小區(qū)居住環(huán)境、造成重大污染或者具有高度危險性的商業(yè)經營活動,同時,采用訂立管理規(guī)約、完善工商審核程序和審查業(yè)主經營活動的方式,限制“住改商”的經營范圍。
[Abstract]:Since the end of 1980's, the market economy of our country has developed rapidly. In order to gain a place in the competitive market economy, more and more small and medium-sized enterprises or self-employed enterprises try to minimize costs and maximize profits. At the same time, the reform of the state-owned system and the increasingly fierce market competition have led to the increase of laid-off workers, thus increasing the pressure of social economy and employment. A growing number of urban owners are shifting their homes from residential to commercial or office uses, known as "home changers." The appearance of "housing reform business" not only brings great convenience to the daily life of residents, but also promotes the rapid development of small and medium-sized enterprises, promotes employment, lightens the pressure of the government, and realizes the moderate mixed layout of urban functions. Of course, it also leads to a series of problems, "housing change business" too much occupied the living quarter of public supporting resources, easy to affect the residential environment, but also to the national financial revenue losses. In general, the emergence and development of "residence change merchants" accord with the trend of market economy, and the owners should be guided to exercise the right to change the use of housing reasonably and fulfill the corresponding legal obligations actively. At present, in our country's "property Law" and other laws, relevant judicial interpretation as well as local laws and regulations, although there are relevant provisions on "housing reform business", but not perfect, lack of operability. To sum up: there are three main legal problems in RTC: first, the standard of defining the scope of interested owners is unreasonable. Second, the interested owners agree that the design of rules is not scientific. Third, the lack of relevant provisions unified and reasonable restrictions on the scope of business. Based on the analysis of the legal problems of "housing reform business", this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to perfect the "housing reform business" legislation. First of all, the legal criteria for interested owners should be clearly defined, according to which the scope of interested owners should be clarified, that is, the owners in this building and other owners who can prove their interest, The owner can prove that his business activities will not adversely affect the owner of the building. At the same time, the owner of the property should also be covered by the owner. Secondly, adopting the combination of "majority decision" and "universal vote" of the next owner, and adopting a written vote to pass the act of "residence reform business". It is suggested that the owner committee or the property management company should seek the consent of the interested owner in accordance with certain procedures. Finally, on the premise of respecting the principle of limiting the scope of business, and by way of legislation, to restrict the residential areas from engaging in commercial activities that seriously affect the living environment of the residential areas, cause serious pollution or are highly dangerous, and at the same time, In order to limit the business scope of "residence change business", we should establish management rules, perfect the procedure of industrial and commercial audit and examine the management activities of owners.
【學位授予單位】：重慶大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.2

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 錢小平;業(yè)主公約法律性質之探討[J];北京工業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2004年04期

2 何曉慧;;我國業(yè)主公約問題之探討[J];甘肅政法成人教育學院學報;2006年01期

3 魯剛寧;;業(yè)主團體法律人格研究[J];重慶工貿職業(yè)技術學院學報;2010年02期

4 許步國;;對我國物業(yè)業(yè)主公約若干法律問題探討[J];經濟與社會發(fā)展;2006年12期

5 鄭欣;;業(yè)主委員會的困境與出路探析[J];雞西大學學報;2008年02期

6 譚玲;業(yè)主委員會法律地位之探析[J];南方經濟;2005年10期

7 馮慶福;;業(yè)主委員會法律地位分析及重構[J];樂山師范學院學報;2010年10期

8 高雅冰;;業(yè)主團體法律地位之中外對比[J];河南理工大學學報(社會科學版);2009年03期

9 李建軍;;淺析業(yè)主委員會的法律性質[J];陜西廣播電視大學學報;2010年02期

10 吳蕓蕓;;業(yè)主委員會自治困境探討[J];科技資訊;2013年33期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 陳仕菊;王濟維;;淺議小區(qū)業(yè)主成員權[A];當代法學論壇（二○一○年第3輯）[C];2010年

相關重要報紙文章 前10條

1 喬新生;業(yè)主委員會真能代表業(yè)主嗎[N];檢察日報;2005年

2 維日律師事務所律師 羅慶鋒;談談業(yè)主委員會備案的法律效力[N];法治快報;2009年

3 孔琳;業(yè)主找“管家”難[N];中國房地產報;2003年

4 韶關日報記者 彭饋〖凹欽，

本文編號：2051095