遗失物制度研究

【作者】 蒋拯；

【导师】 谭启平；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 人们在创造财富的同时，难免会遗失已拥有的财物。随着社会的发展和人流、物流的加剧，人们遗失财物的机率明显增加，被遗失的财物也越来越贵重，国家必须制定合理、高效的制度来调整遗失物拾得关系。外国在遗失物制度方面基本上采取了大体相同的作法，一般都规定拾得人享有报酬请求权和附条件取得所有权的权利。我国《民法通则》只规定拾得人享有必要费用请求权，未规定拾得人报酬请求权及附条件取得遗失物所有权的权利。我国《民法通则》的规定已不能适应市场经济条件下遗失物拾得关系，其缺陷在于：法律规定与道德规范分野不清，过高估计人们的道德水准，过分强调道德的作用而忽视经济上的激励，过分保护遗失人的权利而忽视对拾得人利益的保护。令人遗憾的是，2002年12月17日全国人大公布的《中华人民共和国民法(草案)》还是继承了《民法通则》的不足之处，其明显的改进之处就是明确规定悬赏广告的效力而已。笔者认为，我国将来的民法典应当明确规定：拾得人报酬请求权、拾得人附条件取得遗失物所有权的权利、遗失物管理机关及其权利与义务、拾得人及遗失人的法律地位。全文共分为四部分： 第一部分，分析了遗失物的概念及其构成要件，认为遗失物是指无人占有，但为有主的动产。对特种遗失物——动物、金钱、有价证券、证书、经登记之物及留有通信地址之物和枪支弹药进行了研究。指出了遗失物与遗忘物、抛弃物、不领取物、埋藏物、漂流物及沉没品的区别。深入分析了遗失物的拾得问题，对遗失人、拾得人及拾得的构成、性质、法律意义进行了探讨。最后指出，我国遗失物制度与外国遗失物制度的主要差别及我国现行制度的缺陷。 第二部分，论证了我国应规定拾得人报酬请求权。首先，回顾了我国历代对遗失物的有关规定，发现我国西周及秦、汉采取大物归公、小物归拾得者的作法；唐、宋、元三朝绝对保护遗失人所有权，拾得人无权利；明、清、中华民国时期，拾得人有报酬请求权和附条件取得拾得物所有权的权利。其次，对“拾金不昧”进行解析，认为“拾金不昧”并不必然否认拾得人能取得一定报酬，“拾金不昧”不是美德，而是履行法定义务的行为；对拾得人报酬请求权进行道德分析，认为规定拾得人报酬请求权是知恩图报、平等互利的应然要求，是对拾得人的一种奖赏，其目的是鼓励人们为善.反之，不规定拾得人报酬请求权将造成悬赏广告在道德上具有非难性，将造成一定的道德风险.再次，对拾得人报酬请求权进行了经济分析，认为人是经济人，他追求既定约束条件下的合法利益最大化;在信息不对称的情形下，规定拾得人报酬请求权既提高了效率，保障了公平，对拾得人也是一种有效的激励.遗失人支付报酬换来了物归原主，其与拾得人之间的合作对双方都有利，属于正值交易。 第三部分，论证我国民法应规定拾得人附条件取得遗失物所有权的权利。我国《民法通则》及《中华人民共和国民法(草案)》均采无人认领遗失物归国家所有的作法，认为这样做有利于集中财力建设国家，利于提升民众的道德水平。其实，“国家”是国际法上的概念，国内法上“国家”的提法是不科学的，它实际上指代的是中央人民政府.我国目前认为中央政府及地方政府都能代表国家行使所有权的做法是低效率的，其缺陷是:否认了中央政府和地方政府的公法法人地位(分税制证明二者是不同的利益主俐，造成相互间的责任划分不明确。因此，“收归国家所有”的提法是不明确、不科学的.即便将来我国民法还是否认拾得人附条件取得拾得物所有权的权利，也应明确规定是将无人认领遗失物收归国库所有、省财政所有还是乡镇所有. 笔者认为，否认拾得人附条件取得拾得物所有权的权利而收归国有是不经济的，不利于财产的有效利用，不利要于激励拾得人拾得、报告、交存拾得物，对拾得人是不公正的，对遗失人也不利。而且，还会在事实上扼杀先占制度。因为，拾到动产后，人们根本就无法从外观上判明该动产是有主物还是无主物，最合理的作法应当是先公告寻找物主，再按遗失物制度或先占制度进行处理。可是，一旦公告寻找失主，该物就会被认为是遗失物，即使事实上是无主物，也会因为无人认领而被视作无人认领的遗失物，毕竟，人们实在难以查明无人认领物是否真的是无主物(无主物必然无人认领)。根据先占理论，无主物应归先占人所有，若不规定拾得人附条件取得所有权的权利，那么无人认领物就概不归拾得人所有(其中有的实际上是无人认领的无主物).于是，遗失物制度与先占制度事实上的冲突就出现了。解决的办法是规定拾得人附条件取得遗失物所有权的权利. 第四部分，论述了我国应明确规定公安机关作为遗失物管理机关。对拾得人、遗失人、遗失物管理机关的法律地位进行了探讨。对擅自占有、使用、出卖拾得物的行为及出卖拾得物引起的物权变动问题进行了研究。了更多还原

【Abstract】 With the development of our society and the rapid How of population and goods, people are more possible to lose their property, of which some is expensive. Therefore, it is necessary for countries to make scientific and high-efficiency rules to regulate the relation of lost property. In foreign countries, the rules of lost property usually entitle a picker the right to get reward, and the right to get the ownership of lost property when the conditions in law are provided. On the contrary, "the General Civil Rules of the People’s Republic of China" and the draft of "the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China" which was published on Dec17,2002 both only entitle a picker the claim for his necessary expenses in relation to lost property. Such a kind of rule in our country isn’t adapted to the relation of lost property on the background of market economy. The deficiency is that it confuses rules in law and code of ethics, makes too high an assessment on the level of people’s morals, and thus neglects material incentives to the picker. What’s more, it protects the rights of the owner of lost property excessively and neglects the interests of the picker, so it causes some conflicts among rules of lost property, the theory of preoccupation and advertisement offering a reward. In this article, in order to make up for the preceding deficiencies, the author agrees that our country’s code of civil law in future should provide clearly that a picker has the right to get reward, and the right to get the ownership of lost property when the conditions in law arc provided. Besides, the status of the administrative authority of lost property, the picker and the owner of lost property should be made explicit in law, too. The whole article can be divided into the following four parts:The first part of this article analyses the concepts and requisites of such law firms as lost property, and looks into the distinct between these law firms and other similar law firms. Furthermore, it pointsout the main distinct of the rules of lost property between our country and foreign countries, and the deficiency of our country’s current rules.The second part first narrates the development of the rules of lost property in our country’s history, then discusses the reasonableness to entitle a picker the claim for reward in law through such means as economic and moral analysis on a picker’s claim for reward.The third part expounds and proves that our country’s civil law should set rules on a picker’s right to obtain the ownership of lost property when the conditions in law are provided, because our current rules in law, which deny a picker’s such right and make our country get the ownership of lost property with no owners, aren’t beneficial for making best use of our society’s property, and have causes some conflicts between such rules and the theory of preoccupation.The fourth part mainly discusses we should make public security organs the administrative authority of lost property. What’s more, it researches into the status of the administrative authority of lost property, the picker and the owner of lost property, and the changes of real rights caused by lost property.更多还原