發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-24 00:47

  本文選題：雙重所有權(quán) + 信托財(cái)產(chǎn)�。� 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 信托制度作為英美法系最富創(chuàng)造性的制度，具有高度的彈性，在社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化、科技等多方面的發(fā)展中扮演著極其重要的角色。上世紀(jì)以來(lái)，大陸法系國(guó)家逐漸開(kāi)始重視這一制度，不斷地將其引入本國(guó)法律體系中。我國(guó)《中華人民共和國(guó)信托法》也于2001年10月1日正式生效施行，在起草、制定以及實(shí)施過(guò)程中許多學(xué)者對(duì)信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的歸屬一直存在著較大的分歧。在英美法系中由于普通法與衡平法并流體制的存在，信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的歸屬及其獨(dú)特的“雙重所有權(quán)”結(jié)構(gòu)可以得到完滿的解釋。但是在大陸法系國(guó)家中則不同，由于傳統(tǒng)單一、絕對(duì)所有權(quán)理論的存在，如何在固有體系下確定信托財(cái)產(chǎn)的“雙重所有權(quán)”性質(zhì)，確定信托財(cái)產(chǎn)的所有權(quán)歸屬就成了學(xué)者們面臨的首要難題。為此德、日、韓以及臺(tái)灣等大陸法系國(guó)家及地區(qū)在引入信托制度的過(guò)程中都根據(jù)傳統(tǒng)民法理論對(duì)信托制度進(jìn)行了改造。然而筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)不管如何努力，他們的處理方式不是破壞了傳統(tǒng)所有權(quán)理論體系造成了民法體系的混亂，就是不能最大限度地達(dá)到英美信托制度權(quán)、益分離的效果。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)英美法系的信托制度的探析，在比較分析了大陸法系各國(guó)的信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)立法模式式后，指出在大陸法的現(xiàn)有財(cái)產(chǎn)法體系理論中解釋信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)是不可能的，并進(jìn)一步提出只有把信托納入民事主體制度之中，在立法中承認(rèn)信托的民事主體地位才能完滿地解決信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)歸屬的觀點(diǎn)。 文章第一部分首先對(duì)英美法系財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的立法構(gòu)造進(jìn)行了分析，指出在英美法中所有權(quán)是一個(gè)具體的、沒(méi)有固定涵義的概念，具有可分割的特性。在此基礎(chǔ)上著重介紹了信托制度的靈魂——“雙重所有權(quán)”，既對(duì)信托的“普通法上的所有權(quán)”以及“衡平法上的所有權(quán)”做了充分的分析。該部分主要是為了全面的介紹英美信托制度，以期對(duì)英美法信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)給予一個(gè)全面的分析，為全文論證奠定一個(gè)基礎(chǔ)。第二部分比較分析了信托制度在被引入大陸法系后各國(guó)的信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)立法模式，分別對(duì)“受托人享有信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)說(shuō)”、“受益人享有信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)說(shuō)”、“委托人享有信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)說(shuō)”以及“法主體說(shuō)”進(jìn)行了介紹及評(píng)析，，指出前三者都不適合大陸法系傳統(tǒng)的所有權(quán)體系，而“法主體說(shuō)”由于跳出了財(cái)產(chǎn)法思考局限為我們解決信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的歸屬提供了一個(gè)新的視角，值得我們認(rèn)真研究。該部分重點(diǎn)介紹了我國(guó)的立法模式，指出我國(guó)信托立法雖然沒(méi)有對(duì)信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的歸屬作出明確規(guī)定，但從具體的法律條文中可以看出立法者實(shí)際上是將信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)賦予了委托人。我國(guó)信托法的這種處理模式意圖達(dá)到淡化財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移這一法律后果，使大眾更容易接受，但是由于用詞含糊、法律前后矛盾，相反更容易造成理解上的混淆，因而這種立法模式的不科學(xué)性和不合理性也是顯而易見(jiàn)的。筆者在這部分的最后總結(jié)性地指出了信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)在大陸法系中遭遇障礙得不到完滿解釋的原因就在于大陸法系不可動(dòng)搖的“一物一權(quán)”原則的限制。第三部分是本文的重點(diǎn)，也是筆者主要觀點(diǎn)的體現(xiàn)。筆者在這一部分指出既然我們用大陸法系的所有權(quán)觀念不可能對(duì)英美法系的“雙重所有權(quán)”作出圓滿的解釋，而且也很難放棄傳統(tǒng)的物權(quán)法體系而全盤引進(jìn)英美財(cái)產(chǎn)法，那么最好的解決辦法就是借鑒魁北克的立法模式，從民事主體制度入手以解決這一難題。而這一立法模式的最大障礙在于傳統(tǒng)民法理論對(duì)民事主體判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的誤解，筆者在文章中指出權(quán)利能力、行為能力雖與法律主體資格緊密相連但其并不是構(gòu)成民事主體資格的必備要件；衡量一個(gè)事物是否能成為民事主體應(yīng)以其是否具有獨(dú)立意志、是否擁有自己的獨(dú)立財(cái)產(chǎn)以及法律是否承認(rèn)來(lái)進(jìn)行判斷；并進(jìn)一步指出信托由于具有獨(dú)立的意志、獨(dú)立的財(cái)產(chǎn)而完全符合這種判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。為了進(jìn)一步支持這一觀點(diǎn)，筆者還分析了這一立法模式的合理性，并提出一些立法建議以及如何健全完善我國(guó)信托制度的一些看法。 綜上，筆者認(rèn)為：信托財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)作為民商法中一種特殊的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利，是英美法特有的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)體系中很獨(dú)特的一個(gè)制度，是在特有的背景以及法源下產(chǎn)生的。在大陸法系中，將信托財(cái)產(chǎn)的所有權(quán)歸屬于委托人、受托人或受益人，以期在建立本國(guó)信托制度時(shí)能結(jié)合傳統(tǒng)的所有權(quán)理論，其實(shí)是徒勞的。由于大陸法不可拆分的所有權(quán)理論的存在，要達(dá)到完滿解釋信托“所有權(quán)與收益分離”的本質(zhì)，只有通過(guò)確認(rèn)信托的民事主體地位，才能達(dá)到既不破壞原有所有權(quán)理論又能符合英美信托制度本質(zhì)的最佳效果。
[Abstract]:As the most creative system in Anglo American law system, trust system is highly flexible and plays an extremely important role in the development of society, economy, culture and science and technology. Since the last century, the civil law countries have gradually begun to attach importance to this system and continue to introduce them into the national legal system. China, "People's Republic of China" Trust law is also formally implemented in October 1, 2001. Many scholars have been disagreed on the ownership of trust property in the process of drafting, making and implementing. In Anglo American law system, the ownership of the ownership of trust property and its unique "double ownership" due to the existence of common law and equity and the existence of fluid system. The structure can be fully explained. However, in the civil law countries, because of the traditional single, the existence of the absolute ownership theory, how to determine the "double ownership" property of the trust property under the inherent system and determine the ownership of the trust property has become the primary difficult problem for the scholars. In the process of introducing the trust system, the countries and regions of the continental law system of the Gulf and other continental law systems have reformed the trust system according to the traditional civil law theory. However, the author finds that no matter how hard it is, their way of handling does not destroy the system of the traditional ownership theory and cause the confusion of the civil law system, and it can not reach the British and American letters to the maximum extent. The effect of the institutional right and the benefit separation.
After the analysis of the trust system in the common law system, this paper compares and analyses the legislative pattern of the ownership of the trust property in the countries of the continental law system, and points out that it is impossible to explain the ownership of the trust property in the existing property law system theory of the continental law, and further proposes that the trust should be incorporated into the system of the civil subject and the legislation is in the legislation. In recognition of the civil status of trust, we can resolve the ownership of trust property satisfactorily.
The first part of the article first analyzes the legislative structure of property ownership in Anglo American law system, and points out that ownership in the Anglo American law is a specific, without the concept of fixed meaning, and has a separable characteristic. On this basis, it introduces the soul of the trust system, "double ownership", which is both "common law" to the trust. The ownership "and" equity ownership "are fully analyzed. This part is mainly to introduce the Anglo American trust system in an all-round way, in order to give a comprehensive analysis of the property rights of the Anglo American law trust property, and lay a foundation for the full text argument. The second part compares and analyzes the trust system after being introduced into the continental law system. The legislative model of the ownership of the trust property of the country, respectively, "the trustee enjoys the ownership of the trust property", "the beneficiary enjoys the theory of the trust property ownership", "the trustee enjoy the trust property ownership theory" and "the law subject", and points out that the former three are not suitable for the traditional ownership system of the continental law system, The theory of "law subject" has provided a new angle of view for us to solve the ownership of trust property by jumping out of the property law. It is worth our careful study. This part focuses on the legislative model of our country, and points out that although the trust legislation in our country does not make a definite provision on the ownership of the trust property ownership, it is from the point of view. In the legal provisions of the body, it can be seen that the legislator actually gives the trustee property ownership to the client. This treatment mode of our country's trust law aims to achieve the legal consequences of desalination of property ownership transfer and make the masses more easily accepted, but because of vague words and contradictions in the law, it is easier to cause confusion in understanding. Therefore, the inscientificity and irrationality of this legislative model is also obvious. In the last part of this part, the author points out that the reason why the trust property ownership is not fully explained in the continental law system is the limitation of the unshakable principle of "one thing and one right" in the continental law system. The third part is the article. In this part, the author points out that since we can not make a successful interpretation of the "double ownership" of the Anglo American legal system with the concept of ownership in the continental law system, and it is difficult to give up the traditional property law system and introduce the British and American property law completely, the best solution is to borrow it. The legislative mode of Quebec is to solve this problem from the civil subject system. The biggest obstacle to this legislative model lies in the misunderstanding of the standard of judgment of the civil subject in the traditional civil law theory. The author points out the right ability, the behavior ability is closely connected with the qualification of the legal subject, but it is not a civil subject qualification. It is necessary to judge whether a thing can be a civil subject whether it has independent will, whether it owns its own independent property, and whether the law recognizes it, and further points out that the trust is fully conformed to this criterion because of its independent will and independent property. In order to further support this On the one hand, the author also analyzes the rationality of this legislative mode, and puts forward some legislative proposals and some views on how to improve and perfect our trust system.
As a special property right in the civil and commercial law, the author thinks that the ownership of the trust property is a unique system in the property rights system peculiar to the Anglo American law, which is produced under the special background and the source of the law. In the continental law system, the ownership of the trust property belongs to the principal, the trustee or the beneficiary, in order to build the property right in the continental law system. It is in vain to combine the traditional ownership theory when establishing the national trust system. Because of the existence of the theory of ownership of the mainland law, the essence of the "separation of ownership and income" should be fully explained. Only by confirming the status of the civil subject of the trust, can we achieve no damage to the original ownership theory. The best effect of the nature of the British and American trust system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D922.282

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王冠;資產(chǎn)證券化風(fēng)險(xiǎn)隔離機(jī)制核心問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

本文編號(hào)：1927042