【摘要】：多重買賣現(xiàn)象十分常見,出賣人受利益驅(qū)動(dòng),就同一標(biāo)的物與數(shù)個(gè)買受人簽訂買賣合同。但是,標(biāo)的物只有一個(gè),出賣人無(wú)法就每個(gè)買賣合同履行交付標(biāo)的物的義務(wù)。那么,出賣人應(yīng)當(dāng)將標(biāo)的物交付給誰(shuí),標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬確定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為何?在多重買賣中,這是必須要解決的問題。法釋(2012)8號(hào)1第9、10條規(guī)定了普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)和特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣的履行順序,兩個(gè)法條均認(rèn)同先行受領(lǐng)交付的買受人為最優(yōu)先取得標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的人。均未受領(lǐng)交付的,對(duì)于買賣合同的履行順序,普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)采納了“先行支付價(jià)款說(shuō)”和“合同成立在先說(shuō)”,特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)則采納了“登記優(yōu)先說(shuō)”和“合同成立在先說(shuō)”。司法解釋第10條還明確規(guī)定了在特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)中交付效力優(yōu)先于登記。司法解釋起草者認(rèn)為解釋嚴(yán)格承襲了動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)的規(guī)定,有利于提高司法效率,維護(hù)誠(chéng)實(shí)信用、規(guī)制出賣人的失信行為。但是該司法解釋一出,學(xué)界爭(zhēng)議不斷,且質(zhì)疑者為大多數(shù)。首先,司法解釋規(guī)定違反債權(quán)平等原則。其次,特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)交付效力優(yōu)先于登記,有違背登記對(duì)抗主義的嫌疑,在現(xiàn)實(shí)中也會(huì)沖擊特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的登記制度,導(dǎo)致不公平,造成理論與實(shí)際的混亂。最后,動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中還存在一些司法解釋沒有解決的問題。本文就是旨在研究這些問題,來(lái)明確應(yīng)當(dāng)如何確定動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬。本文通過研究動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣合同履行順序、后買受人主觀狀態(tài)對(duì)標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)歸屬的影響、特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)交付與登記的沖突等問題,來(lái)明確動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣中標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)歸屬的確定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。正文包括四部分,導(dǎo)言和三章主體內(nèi)容。導(dǎo)言主要是提出問題、文獻(xiàn)綜述、研究?jī)r(jià)值和意義等問題,文章主體為三章的內(nèi)容。本文的第一章是對(duì)動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣相關(guān)問題的概述。首先,界定動(dòng)產(chǎn)、普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)和特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的概念。動(dòng)產(chǎn)就是除土地和土地附著物等被稱為不動(dòng)產(chǎn)以外的物,范圍難以枚舉;普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)是指所有除了特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)以外的動(dòng)產(chǎn);特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)在我國(guó)主要指的是船舶、航空器和機(jī)動(dòng)車。其次,分析了何為多重買賣。多重買賣是指出賣人就同一標(biāo)的物訂立多個(gè)買賣合同,分別出賣給數(shù)個(gè)買受人的行為。出賣人將標(biāo)的物交付給先買受人,又就同一標(biāo)的物與后買受人簽訂買賣合同,這種情況屬于出賣他人之物,但也在本文的討論范圍之內(nèi)。再次,對(duì)多重買賣的產(chǎn)生原因進(jìn)行了分析,多重買賣現(xiàn)象是出賣人受利益或其他因素驅(qū)動(dòng)產(chǎn)生的,在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)條件下不可避免,債權(quán)和物權(quán)的相對(duì)獨(dú)立性又為其提供了法律土壤。最后,對(duì)多重買賣現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行了法律評(píng)價(jià)。根據(jù)民法意思自治原則,出賣人有權(quán)在不違反強(qiáng)行法規(guī)定的前提下,與多個(gè)買受人訂立買賣合同。法律對(duì)此不應(yīng)做過多干涉和制裁,法律規(guī)制的應(yīng)當(dāng)是出賣人的違約行為。多重買賣中的后買受人即使知悉前買賣合同的存在,在法律上亦有正當(dāng)?shù)匚�。本文第二章分析了普通�?dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬。首先,分析司法解釋存在的問題�！顿I賣合同司法解釋》第9條規(guī)定了普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣合同的履行順序,采納了“先行支付價(jià)款說(shuō)”和“合同成立在先說(shuō)”。司法解釋規(guī)定違反了債權(quán)平等原則,沒有合理依據(jù)地限制了出賣人的所有權(quán),還不能真正規(guī)制出賣人的失信行為。規(guī)制出賣人的失信行為在現(xiàn)行的民法理論體系內(nèi)就能得到解決,采用這樣違反法律基本理論的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在利益平衡上殊為不妥。其次,探討普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣合同履行順序的確定。對(duì)于多重買賣合同履行順序問題有很多不同學(xué)說(shuō),主要有出賣人自主決定說(shuō)、先行支付價(jià)款說(shuō)、合同成立在先說(shuō)、買受人先請(qǐng)求說(shuō)和競(jìng)價(jià)購(gòu)買及變價(jià)受償說(shuō)等。司法解釋采納了先行支付價(jià)款說(shuō)和合同成立在先說(shuō),認(rèn)為由于出賣人違背了誠(chéng)信原則,故應(yīng)當(dāng)剝奪其自主選擇的權(quán)利。而學(xué)界多對(duì)此觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行批判,認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)回歸到出賣人自主決定說(shuō)。本文通過分析和對(duì)比,認(rèn)為即使多重買賣糾紛進(jìn)入到訴訟或仲裁階段,也應(yīng)當(dāng)賦予出賣人自主決定的權(quán)利,由出賣人自主決定向誰(shuí)履行交付標(biāo)的物的義務(wù)。如果出賣人不行使或不能行使該權(quán)利的,則應(yīng)承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任。最后,分析后買受人主觀狀態(tài)對(duì)標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)歸屬的影響。后買受人的主觀狀態(tài)可以分為善意、惡意和單純知情。對(duì)其他兩者應(yīng)無(wú)爭(zhēng)議,但是對(duì)介于二者之間的單純知情能否對(duì)標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)取得產(chǎn)生影響,有一定爭(zhēng)議。有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為如果后買受人知悉前買賣合同存在,則會(huì)與出賣人構(gòu)成默示的惡意串通,導(dǎo)致合同無(wú)效。本文不贊同這種觀點(diǎn),在單純知情情況下,出賣人基于自己的所有權(quán)出賣標(biāo)的物不是非法行為,沒有損害先買受人債權(quán)的故意,不屬于惡意串通,不會(huì)導(dǎo)致合同無(wú)效。由于債權(quán)的相對(duì)性,只能對(duì)合同當(dāng)事人產(chǎn)生約束力,所以后買受人的單純知情也不會(huì)使得先買賣合同產(chǎn)生對(duì)抗力。本文第三章研究了特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)的歸屬。首先,分析司法解釋存在的問題。司法解釋違反了債權(quán)平等原則,不具有正當(dāng)性;其在普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)多重買賣確定合同履行順序時(shí)采納了先行支付價(jià)款說(shuō),在特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域又拋棄了該說(shuō),顯得邏輯不貫通、處理規(guī)則相當(dāng)隨意;規(guī)定的交付效力優(yōu)先于登記的規(guī)則違背了登記對(duì)抗主義的立法本意,沖擊了特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)的登記制度,會(huì)導(dǎo)致不公平。其次,分析了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)規(guī)則。我國(guó)特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)交付生效,登記僅為對(duì)抗要件。買受人受領(lǐng)交付,但未辦理登記的,其取得標(biāo)的物所有權(quán);買受人未受領(lǐng)交付,但辦理登記的,不取得標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)。最后,分析在特殊動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)變動(dòng)中登記與交付沖突時(shí)何者效力應(yīng)當(dāng)優(yōu)先。登記對(duì)抗主義在我國(guó)債權(quán)形式主義模式下水土不服,各種學(xué)說(shuō)均無(wú)法自圓其說(shuō)。本文建議引進(jìn)物權(quán)合意概念,在當(dāng)事人達(dá)成物權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合意時(shí),發(fā)生物權(quán)變動(dòng)效力。這種物權(quán)合意在所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓方面表現(xiàn)為交付、登記或明確約定。
[Abstract]:The multi-transaction phenomenon is very common, and the seller is driven by the interests, and the same subject matter is signed with several buyers to sign the sales contract. However, the subject matter is only one, and the seller cannot fulfill the obligation to deliver the subject matter in respect of each sales contract. So, why should the seller deliver the subject matter to which the ownership of the subject matter is determined? In multiple transactions, this is a problem that must be addressed. Article 9 and 10 of the release (2012) No.8 provide for the order of the performance of the multi-sale of ordinary and special movable property, both of which agree with the buyer who is the first to receive the title of the subject. The "to pay the price first" and the "The contract was set up first." are adopted for the normal movable property, and the "registration priority" and the "The contract was set up first." are adopted for the special movable property. Article 10 of the judicial interpretation also specifies that the delivery effect in the change of the real right of a special movable property takes precedence over the registration. The drafters of the judicial interpretation believe that the interpretation of the change of the property right of the movable property is strictly carried out, which is beneficial to the improvement of the judicial efficiency, the maintenance of good faith and the regulation of the failure of the seller. The judicial interpretation, however, is in dispute, and the challenge is the majority. First, the judicial interpretation provides for the violation of the principle of equality of claims. Second, the effect of the change of the real right of the special movable property takes precedence over the registration, which is contrary to the suspicion of the registration of the confrontation, and in reality it will also impact the registration system of the special movable property, resulting in the inequity, which leads to the confusion of the theory and the practice. Finally, there are some problems that the judicial interpretation has not solved in the multi-transaction of the movable property. The purpose of this paper is to study these problems to determine how to determine the ownership of the ownership of the subject matter. In this paper, by studying the implementation order of the multiple sales contract of the movable property, the influence of the subjective state of the buyer on the ownership of the subject matter, the conflict between the delivery of the special movable property and the registration, the determination standard of the ownership of the ownership of the subject matter in the multi-transaction of the movable property shall be defined. The text includes four parts, the introduction and the main contents of the three chapters. The introduction is mainly to raise the questions, the literature review, the research value and the meaning, etc., the main body of the article is the content of the three chapters. The first chapter of this paper is an overview of the related problems of the multiple purchase and sale of movables. First, the concept of movable property, common movable property and special movable property is defined. The movable property is a property other than the real property, such as land and land attachments, which is difficult to enumerate; the ordinary movable property refers to all the movable property other than the special movable property; the special movable property refers to the ship, the aircraft and the motor vehicle mainly in China. Secondly, how to buy and sell is analyzed. The multiple purchase and sale refers to the fact that the seller has entered into a plurality of sales contracts on the same subject matter and sold them to several buyers, respectively. The seller delivers the subject matter to the first buyer, and then the same subject matter and the post-buyer enter into a sales contract, which belongs to the property of the seller, but is also within the scope of the discussion herein. Once again, the cause of the multiple purchase and sale is analyzed, and the multi-sale phenomenon is driven by the interests of the seller or other factors, and the relative independence of the creditor's right and the real right is inevitable under the condition of the market economy, and the legal soil is also provided. Finally, the legal evaluation of the multi-transaction phenomenon is carried out. According to the principle of self-government of civil law, the seller has the right to enter into a sales contract with a plurality of buyers without violating the provisions of the jus cogens. The law should not do many interference and sanction, and the legal regulation should be the seller's default behavior. The post-buyer in the multiple trade also has the legal status in the law, even if it knows the existence of the pre-sales contract. In the second chapter, the author analyses the ownership of the ownership of the subject matter of the common movables. First, the problems existing in the judicial interpretation are analyzed. The judicial interpretation of the sales and sales contract> Article 9 sets out the order of the performance of the multi-contract of the ordinary movable property, and adopts the "to pay the price first" and the "The contract was set up first.". The interpretation of the judicial interpretation violates the principle of the equality of the creditor's rights, and has no reasonable basis to limit the ownership of the seller, and can not really regulate the failure of the seller. It is not appropriate to regulate the breach of the law of the seller in the current civil law theory system, and the standard of the violation of the basic theory of the law is not appropriate in the interest balance. Secondly, the paper discusses the determination of the performance order of the multi-contract of common movables. There are many different theories about the order problem of the multi-contract sales contract, mainly including the seller's own decision to say, the first to pay the price, the contract is set up first, the buyer first requests to say and the bid to buy and the price of the price to be paid to say, etc. The judicial interpretation adopted the first to pay the price and the contract was set up in the first to say, because the seller violated the principle of good faith, it should be deprived of the right of the independent choice. The academic circle has criticized the view, and it is suggested that it should be returned to the seller's self-determination. In this paper, by analyzing and comparing, it is considered that the seller's right to self-determination should be given to the seller, even if the multi-sale dispute is in the litigation or arbitration stage, and the seller's self-determination is the duty of the seller to carry out the delivery of the subject matter. If the seller does not exercise or is unable to exercise the right, it shall be liable for breach of contract. Finally, the influence of the buyer's subjective state on the ownership of the subject matter is analyzed. The subjective state of the post-buyer can be divided into good-meaning, malicious and simple-informed. There should be no dispute over the other, but whether the simple and informed consent between the two should have an impact on the ownership of the subject matter, there is a certain dispute. Some scholars believe that if the latter is aware of the existence of the pre-sales contract, it will form an implied and malicious collusion with the seller, resulting in an ineffectiveness of the contract. This paper does not agree with the view that, in the case of simple and informed consent, the seller's own ownership of the subject matter is not an illegal act, and the intent of the first buyer's creditor's right is not damaged, and it does not belong to the malicious collusion, and will not cause the contract to be invalid. Because of the relativity of the creditor's rights, the contract parties can only be binding, so the simple and informed consent of the latter will not make the first sales contract produce the antagonistic force. The third chapter of this paper studies the ownership of the ownership of the subject matter of the special movable property. First, the problems existing in the judicial interpretation are analyzed. The judicial interpretation is in violation of the principle of the equality of the creditor's rights, and it is not justified; it adopts the first payment price in order to determine the performance of the contract for the multiple purchase and sale of the common movables, and then, in the area of the special movable property, it appears that the logic is not through, and the processing rules are quite arbitrary; The priority of the given delivery effect to the registration of the rules is contrary to the legislative intent of the registration of the counter-terrorism, and the impact of the registration system of a particular movable property can lead to an inequity. Secondly, the rule of the change of the real property right of the special movable property in our country is analyzed. The change of the real right of movable property in our country comes into effect, and the registration is only a countermeasure. If the Buyer is subject to the delivery, but the registration is not handled, it acquires the ownership of the subject matter; the Buyer is not subject to the delivery, but the registration is handled, and the ownership of the subject matter shall not be obtained. Finally, the analysis of the effect of the registration and delivery of the conflict in the change of the real right of the movable movables should take precedence. In our country's creditor's right of credit formalism, the registration of the antagonism is not satisfied, and the various theories can't be said from the circle. In this paper, it is suggested that the concept of the right of real right should be introduced, and the effect of the change of the real right may occur when the parties reach the agreement on the transfer of This property right is desirable to be delivered, registered or otherwise agreed upon in respect of the transfer of title.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 楊代雄;;準(zhǔn)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)的物權(quán)變動(dòng)要件——《物權(quán)法》第24條及相關(guān)條款的解釋與完善[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2010年01期

2 張力;鄭志峰;;普通動(dòng)產(chǎn)一物二賣履行糾紛類型化思考——兼評(píng)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》第九條[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2014年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：2504857