本文選題：善意取得 + 贓物　； 參考：《鄭州大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：善意取得是隨著現(xiàn)代社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的快速發(fā)展,順應(yīng)世界民商法日益重視保護(hù)物的動(dòng)態(tài)安全之發(fā)展趨勢(shì),在世界范圍內(nèi)逐步發(fā)展起來(lái)的一項(xiàng)重要民法制度,是物權(quán)制度中的重要內(nèi)容。通說(shuō)認(rèn)為,善意取得制度源于日耳曼法的“以手護(hù)手”原則,隨著市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)對(duì)交易安全與迅捷的要求而日益發(fā)展成熟。該制度強(qiáng)調(diào)的是第三人通過法律行為對(duì)他人財(cái)產(chǎn)善意占有后物的權(quán)利歸屬問題。在保護(hù)善意第三人利益,維護(hù)交易安全與秩序,促進(jìn)物的有效利用,增加社會(huì)財(cái)富等方面意義重大。 在我國(guó),善意取得制度經(jīng)歷了由長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的僅是理論和司法實(shí)踐的承認(rèn),到2007年《物權(quán)法》用專門條款進(jìn)行規(guī)定,實(shí)現(xiàn)了善意取得制度的立法化。然而,理論及實(shí)務(wù)界在欣喜之余也感到些許遺憾：《物權(quán)法》規(guī)定了善意取得的構(gòu)成要件,規(guī)定了適用善意取得后原權(quán)利人權(quán)益救濟(jì)的途徑,甚至明確了遺失物進(jìn)入交易的處理方式,卻未將類似的贓物善意取得這一問題納入視野范圍,不能不說(shuō)是當(dāng)前我們善意取得制度的一個(gè)缺陷。而該問題的明確對(duì)于更好地保護(hù)所有權(quán)以及充分發(fā)揮物的經(jīng)濟(jì)效用,甚至是整個(gè)社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的建設(shè)都意義匪淺。 “贓物”,主要是刑法學(xué)上的一個(gè)術(shù)語(yǔ),是一個(gè)程序性概念。就其物理屬性和商品屬性而言,與一般商品并無(wú)本質(zhì)區(qū)別；占有具有公示公信力,交易者據(jù)此而為交易,顯屬有效的法律行為。如果完全否定贓物適用善意取得,則可能造成善意交易人“財(cái)物兩空”,這顯然有悖法律的公平理念,更破壞了市場(chǎng)交易秩序。故本文在對(duì)善意取得制度的內(nèi)涵、實(shí)質(zhì)、理論基礎(chǔ)等基本問題進(jìn)行梳理的基礎(chǔ)上,試圖通過對(duì)贓物進(jìn)行民法上的分析,對(duì)贓物在交易中的物權(quán)歸屬進(jìn)行比較法考察,對(duì)贓物適用善意取得的正當(dāng)性進(jìn)行論證,進(jìn)而提出我國(guó)贓物善意取得問題的解決思路——贓物原則上不適用善意取得,原權(quán)利人在一定期限內(nèi)享有對(duì)物的回復(fù)請(qǐng)求權(quán),但是超過該期間則請(qǐng)求權(quán)消滅,發(fā)生受讓人善意取得該物的后果。另外,通過確立“公開市場(chǎng)”原則來(lái)對(duì)這種無(wú)償回復(fù)進(jìn)行限制,以保護(hù)公眾對(duì)公開合法交易的信賴。即第三人若通過拍賣、公開市場(chǎng)或從經(jīng)營(yíng)同類商品的商人處購(gòu)得的物,原權(quán)利人行使回復(fù)請(qǐng)求權(quán)時(shí),必須支付相應(yīng)的對(duì)價(jià)。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of modern society and economy, the acquisition of bona fide is an important civil law system developed step by step in the world, conforming to the development trend of the world civil and commercial law paying more and more attention to the dynamic security of protected objects. It is an important content in real right system. It is believed that the system of bona fide acquisition originates from the principle of "protecting hands by hand" of Germanic law, and is maturing day by day with the demand of market economy for transaction security and quickness. The system emphasizes the ownership of the right of the third party to possess the property of others in good faith through legal acts. It is of great significance in protecting the interests of bona fide third parties, maintaining the security and order of transactions, promoting the effective use of goods and increasing social wealth. In our country, the system of bona fide acquisition has experienced the recognition of only theory and judicial practice for a long time, and in 2007, it was stipulated by special clauses, which realized the legalization of the system of bona fide acquisition. However, the theoretical and practical circles also feel some regret in addition to their joy: the Real right Law stipulates the constitutive elements of bona fide acquisition and the way to apply the relief of the rights and interests of the original right holder after the bona fide acquisition. Even the way to deal with the entry of lost property into the transaction has been clarified, but the problem of bona fide acquisition of similar stolen goods has not been brought into the scope of vision, which cannot be said to be a defect of our current system of bona fide acquisition. The clarity of this problem is of great significance to the better protection of ownership and the full play of the economic utility of property, and even the construction of the whole socialist market economy. Stolen goods, mainly a term in criminal law, is a procedural concept. As far as its physical attributes and commodity properties are concerned, there is no essential difference between them and general commodities; possession has the public credibility, and the traders trade accordingly, which is an effective legal act. If we completely deny that the stolen goods should be obtained in good faith, it may cause the bona fide traders to be "empty of property", which is obviously contrary to the fair idea of the law and destroys the order of market transactions. On the basis of combing the connotation, essence and theoretical basis of bona fide acquisition system, this paper attempts to make a comparative study on the ownership of stolen goods in the transaction through the analysis of the civil law. The legitimacy of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods is demonstrated, and the solution to the problem of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods in China is put forward. The original obligee has the right to reply to the stolen goods within a certain period of time. But beyond that period, the right of claim is extinguished and the result of the transferee acquiring the thing in good faith. In addition, this free response is restricted by establishing the "open market" principle to protect public trust in open and legitimate transactions. That is, if the third party through auction, open market or from the business of similar commodities from the purchase of things, the original right to exercise the right to respond to the claim, must pay the corresponding consideration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 何亮;論贓物的善意取得[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1975911