本文關(guān)鍵詞： 借名買(mǎi)房 限購(gòu)令 規(guī)避 合同 代理 效力　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：國(guó)家為限制房?jī)r(jià)而頒布《國(guó)務(wù)院關(guān)于堅(jiān)決遏制部分城市房?jī)r(jià)過(guò)快上漲的通知》等購(gòu)房措施后，借名買(mǎi)房的現(xiàn)象屢見(jiàn)不鮮。雖然房屋買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同系當(dāng)事人的真實(shí)意思表示，法律對(duì)思想意識(shí)沒(méi)有約束力，但當(dāng)事人之間的借名合同在發(fā)生爭(zhēng)議時(shí)即是糾紛的焦點(diǎn)。這類(lèi)借名合同明顯違背了國(guó)家的限購(gòu)令措施，有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，其合同效力不受影響，因?yàn)橄拶?gòu)令屬于國(guó)家政策，不能構(gòu)成違法。另一些觀點(diǎn)則認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)判定違法，但究其原因卻說(shuō)法不一：第一種認(rèn)為其違反了《合同法》第52條第2項(xiàng)關(guān)于“惡意串通損害國(guó)家、集體或者第三人利益”而無(wú)效；第二種認(rèn)為其屬于第5項(xiàng)“違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定”而無(wú)效；第三種認(rèn)為限購(gòu)令是為社會(huì)公共利益而設(shè)，應(yīng)以違背法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定與違背社會(huì)公共利益的“一元論”來(lái)考量規(guī)避限購(gòu)令的合同效力。本文通過(guò)引用兩個(gè)關(guān)于違背國(guó)家政策而借名買(mǎi)房的案例，引出爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)所在，并從《合同法》第52條、代理、以及我國(guó)當(dāng)前處理類(lèi)似案件的實(shí)際做法，說(shuō)明為規(guī)避限購(gòu)令之借名買(mǎi)房行為的效力。 本篇文章分為三個(gè)部分 第一部分：案例引入。引用兩個(gè)案例，一是判定規(guī)避限購(gòu)令之借名買(mǎi)房合同為有效的案例，房屋仍歸實(shí)際權(quán)利人所有。二是為規(guī)避經(jīng)濟(jì)適用房之規(guī)定而借名買(mǎi)房，，其合同被認(rèn)定為無(wú)效而房屋歸名義人所有的案例。都是不具備政府規(guī)定的某種購(gòu)房資格，有意回避政策、法規(guī)，而法院對(duì)法條的不同理解，導(dǎo)致了不同的判決。本文通過(guò)案例指出爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn)與判決存在的問(wèn)題，其分歧點(diǎn)在于對(duì)《合同法》第52條關(guān)于合同無(wú)效的不同認(rèn)識(shí)，對(duì)限購(gòu)令性質(zhì)的認(rèn)識(shí)差異，及該類(lèi)合同中存在的代理關(guān)系的不明析。 第二部分：為規(guī)避限購(gòu)令之借名買(mǎi)房行為的效力分析。該部分是本文的重點(diǎn)，主要從合同、代理、及現(xiàn)行關(guān)于借名買(mǎi)房問(wèn)題的處理辦法，分析為規(guī)避限購(gòu)令之借名買(mǎi)房行為的效力。合同方面主要從合同的一般理論，《合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)關(guān)于法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定，第4項(xiàng)關(guān)于損害社會(huì)公共利益的規(guī)定，以及第5項(xiàng)是否應(yīng)和第4項(xiàng)作二元區(qū)分。分析違背法律、行政法規(guī)的合同的效力，將限購(gòu)令定性為管理性的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范，需要同時(shí)違背社會(huì)公共利益才能認(rèn)定合同無(wú)效，而規(guī)避限購(gòu)令之借名買(mǎi)房合同正符合這兩個(gè)條件。同時(shí)，在代理上，可將借名行為分為直接代理和間接代理來(lái)討論合同效力。實(shí)際操作中，少數(shù)省份發(fā)布了指導(dǎo)借名買(mǎi)房的會(huì)議紀(jì)要，也界定了合同效力。因此，得出的結(jié)論是借名買(mǎi)房合同應(yīng)屬無(wú)效。 第三部分：為規(guī)避限購(gòu)令之借名買(mǎi)房爭(zhēng)議的評(píng)析與解決建議。根據(jù)所述理論，再次分析案例，找出判決中存在的問(wèn)題并提出自己的觀點(diǎn)。同時(shí)根據(jù)所述案例反應(yīng)的問(wèn)題，給出解決建議。主要分為四方面：一是將長(zhǎng)期實(shí)施的政策納入立法內(nèi)容；二是增強(qiáng)法官適用法律的能力；三是房屋登記機(jī)關(guān)嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行不動(dòng)產(chǎn)管理制度；四是實(shí)施有效的房地產(chǎn)調(diào)控政策。建議通過(guò)《價(jià)格法》調(diào)整房地產(chǎn)，同時(shí)政府應(yīng)該增加保障性住房的供應(yīng)以及土地的供給，從根本上解決供求平衡。
[Abstract]:As the country limit prices issued < the State Council on resolutely curb housing prices in parts of the city such as purchase measures notification on the rapid rise, by the name of housing phenomenon. Although It is often seen. real intention of the parties to the contract for the sale of housing, the law is not binding on the ideology, but between the parties by the name of the contract in the event of a dispute is a dispute the focus of this class. By the name of the contract clearly violates the state restriction measures, with a view of the validity of the contract is not affected, because the purchase order belongs to the national policy, does not constitute a violation of the law. Others think should be ruled illegal, but the reason is divided. The first thought in violation of the contract law > fifty-second < second on "malicious collusion harm the country, but not the interests of" collective or third people; second think it belongs to the fifth "violation of the law, compulsory administrative regulations The provisions of "null and void; the third that the purchase order is for the public interest, should be to violate the law, mandatory provisions of administrative regulations and violate social public interests" monism "to consider to circumvent the restriction order contract. This paper quotes two on the contrary to national policy and by the name of housing case that leads to the focus of controversy, and from the" contract law "article fifty-second, agent, and the actual practice of China's current deal with similar cases, instructions to avoid the purchase order effect of buying house behavior.
This article is divided into three parts
The first part: case introduction. Reference to two cases, one is determined to circumvent the restriction order by the name of the sales contract for effective case, the actual housing still belongs to the rights of all people. The two is to circumvent the provisions of affordable housing and buy a house by the name, the contract is invalid and the houses owned by the name of all cases it is not certain. Purchase qualifications stipulated by the government, avoidance of policies, regulations, and the court of different understanding of the law, leading to different decision. This paper points out the existing problems of the dispute focus and judgment through the case, the problem is to "contract law" article fifty-second of the contract invalid different understanding for the purchase of that difference in understanding the nature of the contract and agency relationship exists in the unknown analysis.
The second part: the analysis to avoid the restriction effect to buying house behavior. This part is the focus of this paper, mainly from the contract, agency, and the current about buying house problem analysis approach, to avoid restrictions effect to buying house behavior. The contract is mainly from the general theory of contract. "The Contract Law > fifty-second of fifth on the law, the mandatory provisions of administrative regulations, the provisions of the fourth on the damage of public interest, and whether it should be fifth and fourth for two yuan distinction. Analysis of the effect of administrative regulations violate the law, contract, the purchase order for the mandatory norms of qualitative management, need at the same time, contrary to the public interest to hold the contract invalid, and to circumvent the restriction order by the name of a contract is in line with the two conditions. At the same time, the agency, the name borrowing behavior is divided into direct agency and indirect agency to discuss the validity of the contract During the actual operation, a few provinces issued a meeting minutes to guide the purchase by name, and also defined the validity of the contract. Therefore, the conclusion is that the contract to buy a house by name should be invalid.
The third part: to circumvent the restriction order by the name of buy controversial comments and suggestions. According to the theory, analysis of the case again, find out the problems in judgments and put forward their own views. At the same time, according to the case of the reaction problem solving suggestions. Mainly divided into four aspects: one is to be carried out for a long time the policy into the legislative content; the two is to enhance the ability of the application of law; three is the housing registration authorities to strictly implement the real estate management system; four is to implement the regulation of real estate policy. Through the adjustment of the real estate price < >, at the same time, the government should increase the supply of affordable housing and land supply, from the fundamental to solve the supply and demand balance.

【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】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王利明;;論無(wú)效合同的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法律適用;2012年07期

2 孫鵬;;論違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定行為之效力——兼析《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第52條第5項(xiàng)的理解與適用[J];法商研究;2006年05期

3 黃忠;;違法合同的效力判定路徑之辨識(shí)[J];法學(xué)家;2010年05期

4 王俊霞;;違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定合同的效力[J];廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年03期

5 唐輝;艾永堅(jiān);;淺析房地產(chǎn)限購(gòu)令的性質(zhì)及合法性[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)視角(中旬);2012年01期

6 吳衛(wèi)兵,劉正和;德日等國(guó)違法合同效力認(rèn)定及其借鑒意義[J];江西農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年02期

7 劉玉杰;;論違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定的法律行為效力——來(lái)自德國(guó)法的實(shí)踐與啟示[J];蘭州學(xué)刊;2008年11期

8 尹田;;民事代理之顯名主義及其發(fā)展[J];清華法學(xué);2010年04期

9 張帥梁;;淺析違反強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范民事行為的效力問(wèn)題——基于對(duì)《合同法》第52條第(五)項(xiàng)的理解[J];商丘師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年08期

10 高軍;;限購(gòu)令的合法性探析——兼論房?jī)r(jià)調(diào)控中的法治問(wèn)題[J];山西師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

本文編號(hào)：1448570