本文選題：贓物 + 物權(quán)��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：善意取得制度由日耳曼法的“以手護(hù)手”原則演變而來，歷經(jīng)古代、中世紀(jì)、近代至現(xiàn)代的發(fā)展，今日已經(jīng)成為保護(hù)交易安全的重要制度。在我國，善意取得制度在2007年施行的《物權(quán)法》中得到了承認(rèn)，對(duì)遺失物是否使用善意取得也作出了明確的規(guī)定。但是在市場經(jīng)濟(jì)日趨發(fā)展的今天，市場中贓物因其本身的屬性與一般商品并無區(qū)別，其作為市場流通物的一部分是不可否認(rèn)的客觀現(xiàn)實(shí)。故此產(chǎn)生了善意第三人因信賴而占有的公示公信力。如何保障此種情況下善意第三人的利益，是實(shí)際而迫切的需求。但是《物權(quán)法》對(duì)贓物是否適用善意取得制度做了回避處理，實(shí)務(wù)中對(duì)待贓物處理無所適從。在刑事案件中，犯罪嫌疑人常常將犯罪所得進(jìn)行正常的市場交易或者抵償其所欠正當(dāng)債務(wù)，許多與刑事案件無關(guān)的第三人在不知情情況下購買或者接受了其犯罪所得，這就產(chǎn)生了現(xiàn)實(shí)的贓物善意取得的問題。鑒于此種情況，確立贓物善意取得制度無論從立法層面還是司法層面都是時(shí)事所需的。 贓物的善意取得指的是，無處分權(quán)人占有的情況下，作為讓與物的因違法所得的他人財(cái)物和因該項(xiàng)財(cái)物所產(chǎn)生的收益或變形體，被出讓給第三人，如果第三人基于善意而取得該物，即使該讓與物的性質(zhì)為贓物，仍產(chǎn)生善意取得制度的法律效果，即善意第三人取得該物所有權(quán)，原所有權(quán)人不得對(duì)該物所有權(quán)進(jìn)行追奪。目前各國對(duì)贓物善意取得制度主要采取三種立法模式：完全不適用的立法模式、完全適用的立法模式和限制肯定的立法模式。對(duì)國外立法的比較研究及對(duì)三種立法模式的分析，完全不適用的立法模式已經(jīng)不適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代化的市場交易，完全適用的立法模式將會(huì)以犧牲原權(quán)利人的利益來保護(hù)善意第三人的利益，也并不可取。而限制肯定的立法模式兼顧了物之所有權(quán)的動(dòng)態(tài)安全和靜態(tài)安全，同時(shí)從法律經(jīng)濟(jì)分析的角度出發(fā)，限制肯定的立法模式在贓物善意取得的法律關(guān)系中付出了較小的成本符合了效益最大化的原則，是完善我國贓物善意取得制度的最佳選擇。 從我國古代開始，我國在贓物是否適用善意取得的問題上就歷盡曲折，隨著社會(huì)的發(fā)展，到晚清民國時(shí)期，雖然立法因其先進(jìn)性對(duì)贓物善意取得作出了規(guī)定，但當(dāng)時(shí)社會(huì)的落后性使法律沒有用武之地。建國后至《物權(quán)法》出臺(tái)前我國立法及司法對(duì)于贓物善意取得制度沒有統(tǒng)一并且明確的規(guī)定，這使得在如何處理贓物善意取得的問題上法律規(guī)定混亂、漏洞層出且矛盾突出，然而隨后的《物權(quán)法》也對(duì)此作出了回避，，這就迫切需要確立贓物善意取得制度并對(duì)其進(jìn)行一系列立法與司法上的規(guī)范。故應(yīng)在選擇采取限制肯定模式的基礎(chǔ)上，對(duì)贓物的善意取得的構(gòu)成要件及法律效果作出規(guī)定。縱觀他國之相關(guān)立法，同時(shí)兼顧我國現(xiàn)實(shí)，有必要在規(guī)定贓物善意取得要件構(gòu)成外規(guī)定原權(quán)利人的回復(fù)請(qǐng)求權(quán)，以求最大程度上維護(hù)當(dāng)事人利益平衡，與此同時(shí)對(duì)回復(fù)請(qǐng)求權(quán)進(jìn)行期限和適用上的規(guī)定和限制。通過對(duì)上述問題的研究及分析，以期使贓物善意取得制度能夠在我國民事法律中有所明確規(guī)定，提高法律的科學(xué)性和合理性，保障民事法律有效實(shí)施，借此提高社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)的公平和效率。
[Abstract]:The system of bona fide acquisition has evolved from the principle of "hand protection by hand" of Germanic law. The development of ancient, medieval, modern and modern has become an important system for the protection of trade security. In our country, the good faith acquisition system was recognized in the "property law", which was implemented in 2007, and the acquisition of the lost objects in good faith has also been made. But when the market economy is developing day by day, the stolen goods in the market have no difference between their own property and the general goods. As part of the circulation of the market, it is an undeniable objective reality. Therefore, the public credibility of the third people in good faith is produced. How to guarantee the good faith of third people in this situation? Interest is a practical and urgent demand. But "property law" does not deal with the application of the bona fide system of stolen goods or not. In criminal cases, the criminal suspects often carry out the normal market transactions of the crime or compensate for their due debts, and many have nothing to do with the criminal cases. The third people bought or accepted the proceeds of crime under unknowing circumstances, which resulted in the real acquisition of stolen goods in good faith. In this case, the establishment of a bona fide acquisition system of stolen goods was necessary both in the legislative and judicial levels.
The good faith acquisition of the stolen goods means that, under the circumstances of the possession of the person without the right of disposition, the third persons are transferred to the third party as the property of the other person and the income or deformable body produced by the property, as a result of the illegal gains, and if the third people acquire it on the basis of good faith, even if the property of the concession is a stolen property, the law of good faith is still produced. The law effect, that is, the third people in good faith acquire the ownership of the object, and the original owner may not take the ownership of the object. At present, there are three legislative modes for the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods: the completely inappropriate legislative model, the fully applicable legislative mode and the limitation of the affirmative legislative mode. In the analysis of the three legislative modes, the completely unsuitable legislative mode has not adapted to the modern market transaction. The fully applicable legislative mode will not be advisable to protect the interests of the good faith third persons at the expense of the original rights holders, but the affirmative legislative model takes into account the dynamic and static security of the ownership of the object. From the perspective of legal and economic analysis, the limited cost of legislation in the legal relationship of the bona fide acquisition of stolen goods is in conformity with the principle of maximizing the benefit, and is the best choice to perfect the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods in our country.
From the beginning of our country, our country has gone through the twists and turns on whether the stolen goods are applied in good faith. With the development of the society and the period of the late Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, although the legislation has made a provision for the acquisition of stolen goods in good faith, the backwardness of the society at that time made the law do not use the force of martial law. There is no unified and clear regulation on the system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods, which makes the legal provisions on how to deal with the bona fide acquisition of stolen goods, the loopholes are out and the contradiction is prominent. However, the subsequent "property law" has also avoided this, which urgently needs to establish a system of bona fide acquisition of stolen goods and carry out a series of establishment of it. It is necessary to stipulate the constitutive requirements and legal effects of the bona fide acquisition of stolen goods on the basis of the choice of the restrictive and affirmative model, and to take a look at the relevant legislation of his country and the reality of our country. It is necessary to stipulate the right of the original owner to request the return of the original owner in addition to the constitution of the well intentioned acquisition of stolen goods. To maintain the balance of the interests of the parties, at the same time, the time limit and the application of the right of reply are stipulated and restricted. Through the study and analysis of the above problems, the system of good faith acquisition of stolen goods can be clearly defined in the civil law of our country, to improve the scientific and rational law of the law, and to ensure the effective implementation of the civil law. In order to improve the fairness and efficiency of social and economic activities.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孫鵬;贓物適用善意取得研究[D];清華大學(xué);2007年

本文編號(hào)：1987122