本文關(guān)鍵詞： 借名買房 限購令 規(guī)避 合同 代理 效力　出處：《西南政法大學》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：國家為限制房價而頒布《國務院關(guān)于堅決遏制部分城市房價過快上漲的通知》等購房措施后，借名買房的現(xiàn)象屢見不鮮。雖然房屋買賣合同系當事人的真實意思表示，法律對思想意識沒有約束力，但當事人之間的借名合同在發(fā)生爭議時即是糾紛的焦點。這類借名合同明顯違背了國家的限購令措施，有觀點認為，其合同效力不受影響，因為限購令屬于國家政策，不能構(gòu)成違法。另一些觀點則認為應當判定違法，但究其原因卻說法不一：第一種認為其違反了《合同法》第52條第2項關(guān)于“惡意串通損害國家、集體或者第三人利益”而無效；第二種認為其屬于第5項“違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強制性規(guī)定”而無效；第三種認為限購令是為社會公共利益而設(shè)，應以違背法律、行政法規(guī)的強制性規(guī)定與違背社會公共利益的“一元論”來考量規(guī)避限購令的合同效力。本文通過引用兩個關(guān)于違背國家政策而借名買房的案例，引出爭議焦點所在，并從《合同法》第52條、代理、以及我國當前處理類似案件的實際做法，說明為規(guī)避限購令之借名買房行為的效力。 本篇文章分為三個部分 第一部分：案例引入。引用兩個案例，一是判定規(guī)避限購令之借名買房合同為有效的案例，房屋仍歸實際權(quán)利人所有。二是為規(guī)避經(jīng)濟適用房之規(guī)定而借名買房，，其合同被認定為無效而房屋歸名義人所有的案例。都是不具備政府規(guī)定的某種購房資格，有意回避政策、法規(guī)，而法院對法條的不同理解，導致了不同的判決。本文通過案例指出爭議的焦點與判決存在的問題，其分歧點在于對《合同法》第52條關(guān)于合同無效的不同認識，對限購令性質(zhì)的認識差異，及該類合同中存在的代理關(guān)系的不明析。 第二部分：為規(guī)避限購令之借名買房行為的效力分析。該部分是本文的重點，主要從合同、代理、及現(xiàn)行關(guān)于借名買房問題的處理辦法，分析為規(guī)避限購令之借名買房行為的效力。合同方面主要從合同的一般理論，《合同法》第52條第5項關(guān)于法律、行政法規(guī)的強制性規(guī)定，第4項關(guān)于損害社會公共利益的規(guī)定，以及第5項是否應和第4項作二元區(qū)分。分析違背法律、行政法規(guī)的合同的效力，將限購令定性為管理性的強制性規(guī)范，需要同時違背社會公共利益才能認定合同無效，而規(guī)避限購令之借名買房合同正符合這兩個條件。同時，在代理上，可將借名行為分為直接代理和間接代理來討論合同效力。實際操作中，少數(shù)省份發(fā)布了指導借名買房的會議紀要，也界定了合同效力。因此，得出的結(jié)論是借名買房合同應屬無效。 第三部分：為規(guī)避限購令之借名買房爭議的評析與解決建議。根據(jù)所述理論，再次分析案例，找出判決中存在的問題并提出自己的觀點。同時根據(jù)所述案例反應的問題，給出解決建議。主要分為四方面：一是將長期實施的政策納入立法內(nèi)容；二是增強法官適用法律的能力；三是房屋登記機關(guān)嚴格執(zhí)行不動產(chǎn)管理制度；四是實施有效的房地產(chǎn)調(diào)控政策。建議通過《價格法》調(diào)整房地產(chǎn)，同時政府應該增加保障性住房的供應以及土地的供給，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.

【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王利明;;論無效合同的判斷標準[J];法律適用;2012年07期

2 孫鵬;;論違反強制性規(guī)定行為之效力——兼析《中華人民共和國合同法》第52條第5項的理解與適用[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[J];法學家;2010年05期

4 王俊霞;;違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強制性規(guī)定合同的效力[J];廣播電視大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2009年03期

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

6 吳衛(wèi)兵,劉正和;德日等國違法合同效力認定及其借鑒意義[J];江西農(nóng)業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2004年02期

7 劉玉杰;;論違反強制性規(guī)定的法律行為效力——來自德國法的實踐與啟示[J];蘭州學刊;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;2010年04期

9 張帥梁;;淺析違反強制性規(guī)范民事行為的效力問題——基于對《合同法》第52條第(五)項的理解[J];商丘師范學院學報;2010年08期

10 高軍;;限購令的合法性探析——兼論房價調(diào)控中的法治問題[J];山西師大學報(社會科學版);2012年02期

本文編號：1448570