【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展和企業(yè)融資的需求,以動產(chǎn)設(shè)定的以不轉(zhuǎn)移占有為特征的動產(chǎn)抵押在實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用越來越廣泛。然而,由于制度本身、法律規(guī)定以及歷史繼承等問題,使得動產(chǎn)抵押在使用過程中存在不足并引發(fā)了各種糾紛。在審判實(shí)踐中,抵押物受讓人、抵押物上的其他擔(dān)保物權(quán)人都可能與抵押權(quán)人的權(quán)利發(fā)生沖突,即所謂的動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與第三人間的矛盾。本文圍繞如何解決此類矛盾的主題,梳理相關(guān)爭議與現(xiàn)有規(guī)則,提出相應(yīng)的建議。本文第一部分以司法實(shí)踐中遇到的兩個(gè)真實(shí)案例,引出動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與第三人之間的權(quán)利會發(fā)生沖突以及如何解決此類沖突的疑問。第二部分首先從梳理動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與第三人權(quán)利沖突的規(guī)則入手,著重探析了登記對抗規(guī)則的內(nèi)涵,將第三人的范圍限制在對抵押物取得物權(quán)或者物權(quán)利益的物上第三人。然后,微觀審視動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與其他各類物上第三人的權(quán)利沖突情況,對動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與所有權(quán)人、質(zhì)權(quán)人、抵押權(quán)人、留置權(quán)人、承租人及借用人之間的權(quán)利優(yōu)先順位問題一一進(jìn)行分析,并進(jìn)一步發(fā)現(xiàn)尚存爭議的問題。本文第三部分,則針對前文的分析,揭示動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與第三人利益沖突的本質(zhì)在于動產(chǎn)抵押公示方式的不足,從而發(fā)現(xiàn)動產(chǎn)抵押公示效力的缺陷,提出動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)登記公示的范圍僅及于與抵押人產(chǎn)生直接交易的第三人,對動產(chǎn)抵押登記的公信力應(yīng)依據(jù)抵押物的價(jià)值及第三人的注意義務(wù)不同進(jìn)行靈活裁量。本文第四部分對各國現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定的各項(xiàng)制度以及學(xué)者建議的優(yōu)點(diǎn)與缺陷進(jìn)行分析。本文最后一部分是在上文分析的基礎(chǔ)上,就解決動產(chǎn)抵押權(quán)人與第三人權(quán)利沖突所提出的建議,主要是:完善登記制度,堅(jiān)持登記對抗主義,取消對抵押人處分權(quán)的限制,以肯定動產(chǎn)抵押追及效力為主,對追及范圍進(jìn)行限制。
[Abstract]:With the development of economy and the demand of enterprise financing, chattel mortgage, which is characterized by non-transfer possession, is more and more widely used in practice. However, due to the system itself, legal provisions and historical inheritance, there are deficiencies in the use of chattel mortgage and lead to various disputes. In the trial practice, the transferee of the mortgagee and other security interests on the mortgage may conflict with the rights of the mortgagee, that is, the contradiction between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party. This paper puts forward some suggestions on how to solve this kind of contradiction, combing relevant disputes and existing rules. In the first part of this paper, the author uses two real cases in judicial practice to draw the question that the rights between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party will conflict and how to solve this kind of conflict. The second part begins with combing the rules of the conflict between the mortgagee and the third party, focusing on the connotation of the registration countermeasure rule, and limiting the scope of the third party to the third party who obtains the real right or the real right benefit to the mortgage. Then, it examines the conflict of rights between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party in other kinds of things, and the mortgagee and owner, the mortgagee, the lien, the mortgagee, the mortgagee and the lien. The priority of rights between the lessee and the borrower is analyzed one by one, and the remaining controversial issues are further found. The third part of this paper, according to the above analysis, reveals that the essence of the interest conflict between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party lies in the deficiency of the way of publicizing the chattel mortgage, so as to find the defects of the effectiveness of the publicity of chattel mortgage. This paper puts forward that the scope of the registration of movable property mortgage is limited to the third party who has direct transaction with the mortgagor. The credibility of the registration of movable property mortgage should be flexible according to the value of the mortgage and the third party's duty of care. The fourth part of this paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the existing laws and regulations of various countries as well as the advantages and disadvantages of scholars' suggestions. The last part of this paper is on the basis of the above analysis, to solve the conflict between the mortgagee of movable property and the third party's rights, mainly: perfect the registration system, insist on the registration antagonism, cancel the restriction on the mortgagor's right of disposition. To affirm the chattels mortgage and the effectiveness of the main, to pursue and limit the scope.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 龍俊;;動產(chǎn)抵押對抗規(guī)則研究[J];法學(xué)家;2016年03期

2 薛啟明;;中國法語境下的動產(chǎn)讓與擔(dān)保:體系定位與功能反思[J];法學(xué)論壇;2016年02期

3 高圣平;;動產(chǎn)抵押登記的法理——以《動產(chǎn)抵押登記辦法》的修改為中心[J];法學(xué);2016年02期

4 黃金龍;鄭和園;孟新悅;;動產(chǎn)抵押制度的再思考——以動產(chǎn)抵押的適用范圍與登記制度為中心[J];萍鄉(xiāng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年05期

5 任文俊;;淺議我國抵押權(quán)制度存在的不足[J];學(xué)理論;2015年05期

6 翟云嶺;劉耀東;;論抵押滌除權(quán)制度——以《物權(quán)法》第191條第2款的解釋為中心[J];法治研究;2014年09期

7 王洪亮;;動產(chǎn)抵押登記效力規(guī)則的獨(dú)立性解析[J];法學(xué);2009年11期

8 董學(xué)立;;動產(chǎn)抵押制度不合理嗎?——兼與方金華、林旭霞商榷[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年04期

9 高圣平;;登記對抗主義之下的動產(chǎn)抵押登記制度——兼及《企業(yè)動產(chǎn)抵押物登記管理辦法》的修改[J];法學(xué)家;2007年06期

10 梁上上,貝金欣;抵押物轉(zhuǎn)讓中的利益衡量與制度設(shè)計(jì)[J];法學(xué)研究;2005年04期

，

本文編號：2292440