【摘要】：我國(guó)《物權(quán)法》第28條規(guī)定因人民法院、仲裁委員會(huì)的法律文書導(dǎo)致物權(quán)設(shè)立、變更、轉(zhuǎn)讓或者消滅的,自法律文書生效時(shí)發(fā)生效力,不以公示為生效要件。從解釋論的視角來看,以目的性限縮解釋的立場(chǎng)確定“法律文書”的范圍符合現(xiàn)有法律規(guī)定。以民事訴訟形成之訴理論結(jié)合實(shí)體法有關(guān)形成權(quán)的規(guī)定界定“法律文書”的范圍是一種可行的路徑,據(jù)此可確定撤銷合同、變更合同、分割共有物的判決書、裁決書可以導(dǎo)致物權(quán)變動(dòng)。但形成之訴理論不是解決“法律文書”范圍界定問題的唯一方法,否則會(huì)使“法律文書”的范圍過于狹窄。以文書所體現(xiàn)的公權(quán)力來界定“法律文書”的范圍是另一種可行的路徑,因?yàn)榉晌臅苯訉?dǎo)致物權(quán)變動(dòng)的理論基礎(chǔ)是公權(quán)力的介入。導(dǎo)致物權(quán)歸屬于國(guó)家或者集體的法律文書、調(diào)解書、法院作出的拍賣成交裁定書和以物抵債裁定書體現(xiàn)了國(guó)家公權(quán)力,因此能導(dǎo)致物權(quán)變動(dòng)。調(diào)解書應(yīng)該限定為在形成之訴中支持原告形成訴權(quán)的調(diào)解書,但原則上形成之訴不適宜以調(diào)解結(jié)案,故該種類型的調(diào)解書并不普遍存在。因法律文書取得的物權(quán)在外部效力上未經(jīng)登記不得對(duì)抗善意第三人,適用善意取得制度,在再次進(jìn)行處分前應(yīng)該進(jìn)行登記。
[Abstract]:Article 28 of the property Law of our country stipulates that if the real right is established, changed, transferred or eliminated as a result of the legal documents of the people's court and the arbitration commission, it shall have effect from the entry into force of the legal document and shall not take publicity as the effective requirement. From the perspective of hermeneutic theory, it is in accordance with the existing legal provisions to determine the scope of the legal instrument from the point of view of purposeful restrictive interpretation. It is a feasible way to define the scope of "legal document" by combining the theory of litigation formed in civil proceedings with the provisions of substantive law on the right of formation. According to this, the judgment of canceling the contract, changing the contract and dividing the common property can be determined, and the award can lead to the change of real right. However, the theory of litigation is not the only way to solve the problem of defining the scope of legal documents, otherwise it will make the scope of legal documents too narrow. It is another feasible way to define the scope of "legal document" by the public power embodied in the document, because the theoretical basis of the change of real right directly caused by the legal document is the intervention of public power. The legal documents, mediation documents, auction transaction orders and material payment orders made by the court reflect the public power of the state, so it can lead to the change of the real right. The mediation statement should be limited to the mediation statement which supports the plaintiff to form the right of action in the formed lawsuit, but in principle, the formed lawsuit is not suitable for the settlement of the case by mediation, so this type of mediation statement is not common. The real right acquired by the legal document shall not be registered against the bona fide third party without registration. The bona fide acquisition system shall be applied and shall be registered before the punishment is carried out again.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺(tái)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2
，

本文編號(hào)：2510045