【摘要】：《物權(quán)法》第三十五條確立了排除妨害請求權(quán)這一重要的物權(quán)請求權(quán),但僅做了原則性的規(guī)定而未做細節(jié)性的安排,該模糊性導致了實務中的諸多問題。明確排除妨害的具體適用,首先應明確其主要適用于對不動產(chǎn)所有權(quán)及用益物權(quán)的保護,并將其與返還原物、恢復原狀、賠償損失等予以區(qū)分,此外需要重點解決的核心問題是:1)排除妨害的妨害認定;2)排除妨害的相關主體;3)排除妨害的抗辯事由;4)排除妨害的法律效果。在排除妨害的妨害認定上,應當首先將其與妨礙、侵占、損害等概念嚴格區(qū)分。在此基礎上可將妨害首先分為侵入和侵擾兩個大類,侵擾可分為有形侵擾和無形侵擾,無形侵擾又包括積極侵擾、消極侵擾和意識性侵擾。在判斷是否構(gòu)成妨害時考慮的相關因素主要包括:1)妨害結(jié)果的違法性;2)妨害狀態(tài)的持續(xù)性;3)妨害程度的實質(zhì)性;4)妨害行為的不合理性。侵入的認定僅需考慮前兩項因素,有形侵擾的認定需考慮除妨害行為不合理性的其他三項因素,無形侵擾的認定需考慮全部四項因素。在排除妨害的相關主體上,結(jié)合我國現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定及相關學說,有權(quán)請求排除妨害的權(quán)利人包括:1)所有人;2)用益物權(quán)人;3)居住權(quán)人;4)承租人或借用人;5)業(yè)主委員會。排除妨害請求權(quán)的相對人為:1)行為實施人(特定情況下包括出租人或者特定場所的管理者等);2)所有人;3)使用人(無需考慮其使用是否存在合法的基礎)。在排除妨害的抗辯事由上,除提出不構(gòu)成妨害的抗辯外,相對人還可以主張的抗辯事由為制定法規(guī)定或行政許可以及權(quán)利人同意或合同義務等特殊情況。但權(quán)利人主動接近妨害、不可抗力或者第三人原因以及多數(shù)人構(gòu)成妨害等外來原因一般情況下不作為抗辯事由,而僅能在妨害本身的認定或者妨害排除的費用承擔時予以考慮。在排除妨害的法律效果上,排除妨礙主要針對有形障礙物本身或其直接產(chǎn)生的影響帶來的妨害,效果及于妨害源泉和妨害結(jié)果的排除;停止侵害主要針對持續(xù)的行為帶來的妨害,效果為侵害行為的停止;金錢補償系排除妨害不能適用情況下派生出來的救濟手段,效果為對權(quán)利人的適當補償。妨害排除費用的承擔可以參照侵權(quán)法責任承擔的相關規(guī)則,一般情況下由相對人承擔,特殊情況下考慮共同分擔或由多人共同承擔。
[Abstract]:Article 35 of Real right Law establishes the right of claim of excluding obstruction of claim in real right, but it only makes the stipulation of principle but not the arrangement of detail, which leads to many problems in practice. First of all, it should be clear that it is mainly applicable to the protection of real estate ownership and usufruct, and distinguish it from restitution, compensation for losses, etc. In addition, the key problems that need to be solved are: (1) the determination of obstruction; (2) the relevant subject of excluding obstruction; (3) the defense of excluding obstruction; (4) the legal effect of "excluding obstruction". In order to eliminate obstruction, we should distinguish it strictly from the concepts of hindrance, encroachment, damage and so on. On this basis, the nuisance can be divided into two categories: intrusive and intrusive, which can be divided into visible and intangible intrusions, positive intrusions, negative intrusions and conscious intrusions. The related factors in judging whether or not to constitute a hindrance include: 1) illegality of impairing result; 2) persistence of impairing state; 3) substance of impairing degree; 4) irrationality of impairing behavior. The identification of invasion only needs to consider the first two factors, the identification of tangible intrusion should consider the other three factors except the irrationality of hindrance, and the identification of intangible intrusion should consider all four factors. On the subject of excluding obstruction, the obligee who has the right to request exclusion includes: 1) owner; 2) usufruct; 3) right of residence; 4) lessee or borrower; 5) owner's committee. The counterparty to exclude prejudice claim is: 1) the perpetrator of the act (including the lessor or the manager of the particular place, etc.); 2) the owner; 3) the user (regardless of whether there is a legal basis for its use). In the defense of excluding obstruction, in addition to putting forward the defense which does not constitute prejudice, the counterparty may also claim the special circumstances such as the formulation of law or administrative license and the consent or contractual obligation of the obligee. But the obligee takes the initiative to approach the hindrance, force majeure or the reason of the third party, and the reason of the majority of the person to constitute a nuisance, etc. Generally, it is not a defense reason, but can only be taken into account in the determination of the prejudice itself or when the expense of the obstruction is excluded. As for the legal effect of excluding obstruction, the exclusion of obstruction is mainly directed against the visible obstacle itself or its direct effect, and the effect is the exclusion of the source of obstruction and the result of obstruction; To stop the infringement is mainly aimed at the obstruction brought by the continuous behavior, the effect is to stop the infringing behavior; the money compensation is the relief means derived from the circumstance that the obstruction can not be applied, the effect is the proper compensation to the obligee. The assumption of the expense of prejudice exclusion may refer to the relevant rules of tort liability, generally by the relative party, and under special circumstances by the consideration of common sharing or by more than one person.
【學位授予單位】：浙江工商大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 李云波;;嵌入不可量物排放關系中的容忍義務[J];揚州大學學報(人文社會科學版);2014年04期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 劉麗;侵權(quán)法上私人妨害制度比較研究[D];對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學;2014年

2 李云波;相鄰不可量物排放關系的私法調(diào)整[D];復旦大學;2011年

，

本文編號：2293702