【摘要】 商品房消费者优先权具有法理上的正当性基础，其在社会基础层面承袭安居乐业的文化传统；在人权保障层面尊重公民的基本生存权益；在消费者权益保护层面矫正商品房交易双方的不平等地位；在社会效果层面有助于实现促进房地产行业稳健发展与维护社会秩序稳定的目标。商品房消费者优先权的认定应以保障买受人基本生存权利为逻辑起点，以兼顾其他主体合法利益为检验标尺。基于对3625宗案件的分析与检视，在主体的认定上，以自己名义购买房屋分配给员工居住的单位以及二手房买受人都不属于商品房消费者。在目的要件的认定上，买受人需同时满足存在真实的购房意思表示、名下没有能够满足合理居住需求的房屋以及新购房屋未超出保障居住需求的必要范畴三个条件。在取得的认定上，应以双方当事人的意思表示与合同内容辨别预约合同与本约合同，并明确商品房买卖合同不因开发商未取得预售许可证明归于无效；同时应要求买受人在一审法庭辩论终结前支付全部价款。更多还原

【Abstract】 The priority rights for commercial housing consumers are grounded in multiple legitimate bases. It inherits the cultural tradition of having a stable home and a peaceful life at the social foundation level; respects the basic survival rights of citizens at the level of human rights protection; corrects the unequal status in commercial housing transactions at the level of consumer rights protection; and achieves the goals of promoting the stable development of the real estate industry and maintaining social order stability at the social effect level. The determination of the priority right for commercial housing consumers should take ensuring the basic survival rights of the purchasers as the logical starting point, and take protecting the legitimate rights of other parties as the test criterion. Based on the analysis of 3625 cases, it can be found that in the determination of the subject, neither units that purchase houses for employee residence nor individual purchasers of second-hand houses qualify as commercial housing consumers. In the identification of the purpose element, the purchasers need to meet three conditions at the same time: having a genuine intention to purchase the house, not owning any house that meets reasonable living needs, and ensuring the newly purchased house does not exceed the necessary scope for ensuring the living demand. In the determination of the acquisition of the priority, we should distinguish the pre-contract from the formal contract based on the declaration of will of both parties, and make it clear that the commercial housing sales contract shall not be deemed invalid solely because the developer failed to obtain a pre-sale permit. Besides, the purchasers should pay the full price before the conclusion of court debate in the first instance.更多还原