【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的飛速發(fā)展，我國(guó)人民日益增長(zhǎng)的物質(zhì)需求也日益強(qiáng)烈，而使“居者有其屋”也成為國(guó)家科學(xué)發(fā)展中民生保障的重中之重。然而從2007年起由于房地產(chǎn)交易量和交易價(jià)格均異常增長(zhǎng)，我國(guó)隨即出臺(tái)了多項(xiàng)旨在控制樓市房?jī)r(jià)的房屋調(diào)控政策，它們多以戶籍或者社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)繳費(fèi)年限以及名下已購(gòu)房套數(shù)作為限制標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，這些被統(tǒng)稱為房屋限購(gòu)令。這是為了更有效和及時(shí)地對(duì)房?jī)r(jià)進(jìn)行國(guó)家調(diào)控，從而抑制上漲過(guò)快的房?jī)r(jià)和投機(jī)性房地產(chǎn)投資行為所出臺(tái)的一項(xiàng)政策。雖然房屋限購(gòu)令對(duì)解決問(wèn)題的作用短期內(nèi)產(chǎn)生了一定作用，但卻未切中問(wèn)題的要害。該政策的合理性值得商榷，限購(gòu)令的功效與局限性也需要反思。目前學(xué)界多是從法理學(xué)或者法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度闡述對(duì)此問(wèn)題的看法，本文試從民法角度以房屋限購(gòu)令為例進(jìn)行審視，以期更好的對(duì)今后我國(guó)的各種限購(gòu)令進(jìn)行規(guī)范。 本文的民法視角包括物權(quán)限制并深入到所有權(quán)的限制方面。除了前言部分共分為五部分。 第一部分，先介紹一下房屋限購(gòu)令的出臺(tái)背景和基本內(nèi)涵，房屋限購(gòu)令是對(duì)購(gòu)房主體以居民家庭為單位，以有無(wú)本市戶籍居民家庭為區(qū)分條件；非本市戶籍居民家庭能夠提供本市1年(或2年)以上納稅證明或社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)繳納證明的采取限購(gòu)一套；本市戶籍居民家庭無(wú)法提供1年以上本市納稅證明或社會(huì)保險(xiǎn)繳納證明的采取限購(gòu)兩套或停售的措施。明確房屋限購(gòu)令的本質(zhì)是一項(xiàng)民事政策。 第二部分，將目光投向物權(quán)法領(lǐng)域，首先對(duì)物權(quán)的取得限制和行使限制的含義、原因以及方式進(jìn)行分析說(shuō)明，明確本文中所討論的物權(quán)限制概念的定義范圍，之后對(duì)所有權(quán)限制進(jìn)行合理性分析，明確了文章所討論的所有權(quán)限制理論的含義內(nèi)容，提出所有權(quán)限制具有復(fù)雜性、多樣性、差異性的特點(diǎn)。最后文章論及物權(quán)取得的限制與房屋限購(gòu)令的關(guān)系問(wèn)題，從比例原則、法律保留原則和必要原則三個(gè)角度予以論述，對(duì)房屋限購(gòu)令的合理合法性進(jìn)行分析和解讀。 第三部分，房屋限購(gòu)令作為一項(xiàng)房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)的重大政策，不但需要考慮其合法性，更需要考慮其經(jīng)濟(jì)性。筆者通過(guò)帕累托效率理論和成本分析法分析房屋限購(gòu)令的可行性和恰當(dāng)性，同時(shí)以現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中的民法問(wèn)題沖突作為焦點(diǎn)來(lái)綜合考慮房屋限購(gòu)令的可行性以及優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)，提出，房屋限購(gòu)令的頒布實(shí)施并不符合帕累托最優(yōu)的選擇，人為地提高非法律成本，從社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)生活中看，其違法成本大于守法成本，短期內(nèi)限購(gòu)令一定程度上抑制了房?jī)r(jià)過(guò)快上漲，但是長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看，房屋限購(gòu)政策不具有合理性和效率性。 第四部分，文章首先對(duì)房屋限購(gòu)令的合法性進(jìn)行分析，說(shuō)明房屋限購(gòu)令違反物權(quán)登記制度的各種表現(xiàn)，提出限購(gòu)令因忽視法律而導(dǎo)致執(zhí)行效果和政策穩(wěn)定性上不夠理想，存在諸多問(wèn)題需要解決；之后，筆者針對(duì)社會(huì)生活中的種種規(guī)避限購(gòu)令的現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行分析介紹，進(jìn)一步闡述房屋限購(gòu)令的不完善導(dǎo)致公民違法成本大于守法成本的問(wèn)題，，根據(jù)這些社會(huì)現(xiàn)象，筆者提出社會(huì)成本和社會(huì)效果是評(píng)判房屋限購(gòu)令問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 最后一部分，筆者在前文分析結(jié)論的基礎(chǔ)上，從民法角度審視房屋限購(gòu)令，重新思考自由與限制、效率與正義關(guān)系的現(xiàn)實(shí)取舍問(wèn)題，提出限購(gòu)令應(yīng)以市場(chǎng)交易為前提，以公共利益為原則，控制交易成本，兼顧物權(quán)支配的自由。最后，筆者針對(duì)目前房屋限購(gòu)令所出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題，提出合理化建議，認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)盡快從法律上完善限購(gòu)令，使其符合形式正義的要求；通過(guò)房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)、社會(huì)市場(chǎng)調(diào)節(jié)和政府適當(dāng)管控來(lái)共同完善房屋限購(gòu)令，確保房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)的健康發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of our country's economy, the increasing material demand of our people is becoming increasingly strong, so that "home ownership" has become the top priority of the people's livelihood Protection in the national scientific development. However, since 2007, due to the abnormal growth of real estate transaction volume and transaction price, China has introduced a number of measures to control housing prices. Housing control policies, which use household registration or social insurance payment years and the number of purchased housing units under their names as restrictive criteria, are collectively referred to as housing restriction orders. The rationality of the policy is questionable, and the efficacy and limitations of the order need to be rethought. At present, most scholars expound their views on this issue from the perspective of jurisprudence or economics of law. This paper tries to discuss this issue from the perspective of civil law. Take the housing restriction order as an example to examine the situation in order to better regulate the various restriction orders in the future.
The civil law perspective of this article includes the limitation of real right and goes deep into the limitation of ownership, except the preface is divided into five parts.
The first part introduces the background and basic connotation of the house purchase restriction order. The house purchase restriction order is the restriction on the adoption of the tax or social insurance payment certificate for the non-city household household households. Purchase of one set; the city's households can not provide more than one year of the city's tax certificate or social insurance payment certificate to limit the purchase of two sets or suspend the sale of measures. Clear house purchase order is a civil policy in nature.
The second part focuses on the realm of real right law. Firstly, the meaning, reasons and ways of restriction of acquisition and exercise of real right are analyzed and explained. Then the definition scope of restriction of real right discussed in this paper is defined. Then the rationality of restriction of all rights is analyzed and the implication of the theory of restriction of ownership discussed in this paper is clarified. Finally, the article discusses the relationship between the restriction of property right acquisition and the house purchase restriction order from three angles: the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal reservation and the principle of necessity, and analyzes and interprets the rationality and legitimacy of the house purchase restriction order.
In the third part, as an important policy of the real estate market, the house purchase restriction order needs to consider not only its legitimacy, but also its economy. The feasibility, advantages and disadvantages of the house purchase restriction order are pointed out. The promulgation and implementation of the house purchase restriction order does not conform to Pareto's optimal choice. It artificially raises the non-legal cost. From the social and economic life, the illegal cost is greater than the law-abiding cost. The short-term purchase restriction order to a certain extent inhibits the rapid rise of house prices, but in the long run, the house limit. The purchase policy is not reasonable and efficient.
In the fourth part, the article firstly analyzes the legality of the house purchase restriction order, explains the various manifestations of the house purchase restriction order violating the real right registration system, and points out that the enforcement effect and policy stability of the house purchase restriction order caused by neglecting the law are not ideal enough, and there are many problems to be solved; then, the author aims at the various evasive restrictions in social life. Based on the analysis and introduction of the phenomena of the purchase order, this paper further expounds the problem that the imperfection of the house purchase order results in the citizens'illegal cost exceeding the law-abiding cost. According to these social phenomena, the author puts forward that the social cost and the social effect are the key criteria for judging the problem of the house purchase order.
In the last part, the author examines the house purchase restriction order from the perspective of civil law, rethinks the realistic choice between freedom and restriction, efficiency and justice, and puts forward that the order should be based on market transactions, take public interests as the principle, control transaction costs, and give consideration to the freedom of property control. At present, there are some problems in the house purchase restriction order, and some rationalization suggestions are put forward. It is believed that the house purchase restriction order should be perfected in law as soon as possible to meet the requirement of formal justice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 姚輝;;單雙號(hào)限行中的所有權(quán)限制[J];法學(xué)家;2008年05期

2 鄭少華;;“限購(gòu)令”的法律解釋[J];法學(xué);2011年04期

3 李文健;刑事訴訟效率論——基于效率價(jià)值的經(jīng)濟(jì)法學(xué)分析(下)[J];政法論壇;1997年06期

4 齊恩平;;“民事政策”的困境與反思[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2009年02期

5 黃俊輝;;物權(quán)濫用與限制[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年05期

6 ;潘石屹:這次調(diào)控對(duì)市場(chǎng)有立竿見(jiàn)影的影響[J];中國(guó)建筑金屬結(jié)構(gòu);2010年11期

本文編號(hào)：2232676