本文選題：建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：共同共有權(quán)　出處：《內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)在國外的民法史上一直都是重要的一項(xiàng)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)形態(tài),尤其是在私有制經(jīng)濟(jì)制度主導(dǎo)的國家,這項(xiàng)權(quán)利的發(fā)展已經(jīng)相當(dāng)成熟,只是基于各國的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)以及民法理念的不同,對(duì)此權(quán)利的界定一直都未形成通說。我國在規(guī)定此項(xiàng)權(quán)利時(shí),采用的是德國學(xué)者貝爾曼提出的三元論學(xué)說,即專有權(quán)、共有權(quán)以及成員權(quán)這三種權(quán)利相結(jié)合而產(chǎn)生的新型不動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)。這種形式的不動(dòng)產(chǎn)物權(quán)在德國早期國內(nèi)的《住宅所有權(quán)法》中就已經(jīng)進(jìn)行了細(xì)致的規(guī)定,并且德國的這項(xiàng)理論得到大多數(shù)國家學(xué)者的認(rèn)同。我國目前主要通過《中華人民共和國物權(quán)法》、《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)糾紛案件具體應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》和《物業(yè)管理?xiàng)l例》等相關(guān)的法律法規(guī)來調(diào)整城市住宅小區(qū)的區(qū)分所有權(quán)權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系。由于我國對(duì)該制度立法起步較晚,大眾對(duì)這項(xiàng)權(quán)利還沒有許多了解,尤其對(duì)建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)中的共有權(quán)權(quán)利的認(rèn)識(shí)及權(quán)利歸屬、行使和保護(hù)方面明顯存在缺失。筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)中的共有權(quán)與現(xiàn)行民法上的一般共有權(quán)即有相似之處,也有區(qū)別之處,但建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)中的共有權(quán)究竟屬于何種共有,共有權(quán)利究竟應(yīng)當(dāng)以什么樣的形式來行使,長期以來這一直都是學(xué)說上的重要爭議焦點(diǎn)之一。因此研究與探索建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)當(dāng)中的共有權(quán)制度及共有權(quán)制度的行使與救濟(jì)方式,具有重要的理論意義與實(shí)踐價(jià)值。筆者此次就是想通過審判實(shí)踐中所遇到的建筑物區(qū)分所有權(quán)中關(guān)于共有權(quán)糾紛的案例,對(duì)小區(qū)業(yè)主應(yīng)如何行使共有權(quán)與如何進(jìn)行共有權(quán)的救濟(jì)問題進(jìn)行一下簡單的研究。
[Abstract]:Building ownership has always been an important form of real estate ownership in the history of civil law abroad, especially in the countries where the private ownership economic system dominates. The development of this right is quite mature, only based on the politics of each country. The definition of this right has not formed a general theory for the different ideas of economy and civil law. When our country prescribes this right, it adopts the ternary theory put forward by German scholar Berman, that is, the exclusive right. This form of real estate right has been carefully stipulated in the early German "Residential ownership Law", which is a new type of real estate property which comes from the combination of the three rights of co-ownership and member right. And this theory of Germany has been approved by most scholars in most countries. At present, our country mainly adopts the Law of the people's Republic of China on Real right, and the Supreme people's Court applies the law in handling disputes over the ownership of buildings. Explanation of several problems and relevant laws and regulations, such as the property Management regulations, to adjust the relationship between the rights and obligations of differentiated ownership in urban residential areas. Because of the late start of legislation on this system in our country, There is not much public understanding of this right, in particular the recognition and attribution of co-ownership rights in condominium ownership of buildings, The author finds that there are similarities and differences between the common ownership and the common ownership in the current civil law. However, what kind of common ownership is the common right in the ownership of the building, and what kind of form should the common right be exercised? For a long time, this has always been one of the important controversial points in theory. Therefore, the study and exploration of the system of co-ownership and the exercise and relief of the system of co-ownership of buildings, It has important theoretical and practical value. This time, the author wants to pass the case of condominium right dispute in the trial practice. This paper makes a simple study on how to exercise the co-ownership and how to carry out the relief of co-ownership.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 肖建國;黃忠順;;業(yè)主共同權(quán)益訴訟主體論綱[J];法律適用;2009年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1608918