本文選題：住宅小區(qū)會所　切入點：所有權　出處：《西南政法大學》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：隨著我國經(jīng)濟的蓬勃發(fā)展和住房制度改革的深化，商品房買賣市場呈現(xiàn)一片繁榮之景。但同時，有關商品房的各種糾紛亦是頻發(fā)。這其中一個尤為引人關注的就是關于商品房住宅小區(qū)會所所有權的糾紛。本文由對典型案例的分析引出我國在確定小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬這方面存在的問題。接著通過結合國內(nèi)外的立法和相關學說，對如何確定小區(qū)會所所有權的歸屬提出了自己的綜合性判斷標準，同時也對相關立法的完善提出的自己的建議。 文章第一部分對于柳州市金河灣業(yè)主委員會訴安青房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)有限公司案進行了簡要的介紹和分析，得出結論：我國小區(qū)會所所有權的歸屬無論是在法律上還是在學術上都是處于一種不明確的狀態(tài)。 文章第二部分先對我國關于小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬的立法進行了說明和評析。接著分析我國學術界關于小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬的五種主要學說：小區(qū)業(yè)主共有論、開發(fā)商所有論、約定優(yōu)先論、房價構成論和綜合性判斷標準論。在詳細討論這五種學說的優(yōu)缺點的基礎上，對這五種學說去蕪存菁，提取出了其中合理的部分。 文章第三部分闡述了美國、法國、香港特別行政區(qū)、日本和我國臺灣地區(qū)的法律法規(guī)中有關小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬的規(guī)定。介于這些國家和地區(qū)早已確立建筑物區(qū)分所有權制度，我國現(xiàn)階段的關于小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬的判斷標準和未來的立法應該多學習這些發(fā)達國家和地區(qū)。 文章第四部分是本文的關鍵，闡述了一個確定小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬的綜合性判斷標準。該判斷標準是通過依次考察業(yè)主與開發(fā)商的約定、房價構成和小區(qū)會所的運營情況來綜合判斷小區(qū)會所所有權的歸屬。確立這樣的綜合性判斷標準主要有五個理由：1，彌補采用單一理論所帶來的缺陷；2，盡最大可能維護廣大小區(qū)業(yè)主的利益；3，簡便有效地解決有關小區(qū)會所所有權的糾紛；4，消除再次引發(fā)糾紛的可能性；5，明晰在以往學者研究中被忽略的一些重要的細節(jié)問題。 文章第五部分提出了一些關于完善有關小區(qū)會所所有權歸屬的法律法規(guī)的建議。在法律層面要制定專門的《建筑物區(qū)分所有權法》，，重新定義共有部分和專有部分，并明 確業(yè)主大會的法律地位。對于相關配套法規(guī)，主要要制定《業(yè)主大會和業(yè)主委員會條例》，讓業(yè)主有管理小區(qū)會所的能力。
[Abstract]:With the vigorous development of our country's economy and the deepening of housing system reform, the commercial housing market presents a prosperous scene. But at the same time, All kinds of disputes about the commercial housing are also frequent. One of them is the dispute about the ownership of the clubhouse in the residential district of the commercial house. This article draws the conclusion from the analysis of the typical case that the clubhouse in our country is determined. The question of the right to attribution... Then, by combining domestic and foreign legislation and relevant doctrines, The author puts forward his own comprehensive judgment standard on how to determine the ownership of the community clubhouse, and also puts forward his own suggestions on the perfection of relevant legislation. The first part of the article briefly introduces and analyzes the case of owners Committee of Jin He Bay in Liuzhou City v. Anqing Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. The conclusion is that the ownership of clubhouse in our country is not clear in law or academically. The second part of the article first explains and comments on the legislation of ownership of community clubhouse in our country, and then analyzes the five main theories about ownership of clubhouse in Chinese academic circles: ownership of community owner, ownership of developer, ownership of clubhouse, ownership of clubhouse, ownership of clubhouse and ownership of clubhouse. On the basis of discussing the merits and demerits of these five theories in detail, the reasonable part of them is extracted. The third part of the article describes the United States, France, Hong Kong Special Administrative region, The laws and regulations of Japan and Taiwan on the ownership of residential clubhouses. In these countries and regions, the system of building condominium ownership has been established for a long time. At present, our country should learn more from these developed countries and regions in judging the ownership of community clubs and future legislation. The article 4th part is the key of this paper, and expounds a comprehensive judgment standard to determine the ownership of the community clubhouse. This judgment standard is based on the agreement between the owner and the developer in turn. The composition of house prices and the operation of the clubhouse are used to judge the ownership of the clubhouse. There are five main reasons for establishing such a comprehensive criterion: 1, to make up for the defects brought by the adoption of a single theory. To safeguard the interests of the owners of the community, to solve the disputes about the ownership of the clubhouse simply and effectively, to eliminate the possibility of causing the disputes again, and to clarify some important details which have been neglected by scholars in the past. In the 5th part of the article, some suggestions are put forward to perfect the laws and regulations concerning the ownership of the clubhouse in the district. At the legal level, we should formulate a special law on building condominium ownership, redefine the common part and the exclusive part, and make it clear that. To ensure the legal status of the owners' meeting, we should mainly formulate the regulations of the owners' Congress and the owners' Committee to make the owners have the ability to manage the community clubs.
【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】：D922.29

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 徐生鈺;梁東黎;;小區(qū)業(yè)主的建筑物區(qū)分所有權客體界分——一個經(jīng)濟學的解釋[J];城市問題;2009年07期

2 陳健;初探小區(qū)會所的權屬[J];福建建筑;2004年03期

3 唐鋒軍;;關于建筑物區(qū)分所有權制度幾個問題的探討[J];佛山科學技術學院學報(社會科學版);2008年06期

4 雷姣姣;張明倩;;淺議建筑物區(qū)分所有權制度相關問題[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2010年08期

5 申黎,何欣榮;小區(qū)的會所、學校等設施應屬于誰所有?[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2004年11期

6 甘曉琳;;小區(qū)會所產(chǎn)權的認定分析[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2012年15期

7 朱惠麗;住宅小區(qū)附屬會所的涉稅問題研究[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2005年04期

8 張定一;;《物權法》實施后房屋權屬登記的有關問題[J];中國房地產(chǎn);2007年09期

9 王愛國;李棠潔;;我國住宅小區(qū)會所權屬與利用的初探[J];湖北省社會主義學院學報;2008年03期

10 徐生鈺;;商品房的邊界分析——兼論業(yè)主的建筑物區(qū)分所有權客體界分[J];南京社會科學;2008年07期

本文編號：1640997