【作者】 吴玉阁；

【导师】 董翠香；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 德国物权形式主义物权变动模式下，物权行为无因性原则从源头上切断了由于原因关系瑕疵引发的交易风险，为物权公示公信原则的建立扫清了障碍。物权行为无因性原则使善意取得建立在保护合法有效交易的基础之上，最终形成了体系完备，逻辑一体的保护交易安全的法律制度。日本债权意思对抗主义下，在动产领域，善意取得仍是主要的保护交易安全的法律制度；在不动产领域，日本的通说和判例不承认登记的公信力，为了弥补交易安全保护的不足，判例通过对日本民法典第94条第2款的类推适用，确立了登记的相对公信力。但是在二重买卖或原因关系瑕疵产生的物权归属问题上，主要借助买受人权利具备公示手段可以对抗其他买受人，即公示的对抗力来加以解决。但是，债权意思对抗主义对物权变动问题始终在因重视公示原则将对抗问题无限制的扩大，还是要限定对抗问题而重视意思主义原则之间徘徊不定。导致受对抗力保护的“第三人范围问题”，通说和判例并没有坚持一贯的立场，交易安全面临着难以预测的风险。另一方面，债权行为的瑕疵直接影响物权变动的效果，使物权公示公信原则难以确立。这些问题应足以为中国的物权法制定者引以为戒。比较德日的相关立法之后，重新审视我国物权法草案拟选择的债权形式主义立法模式，似有重蹈日本民法覆辙的危险。该模式造成诸多争议与实践上的困难，突出地反映在：《合同法》第51条“无权处分”(债权合同)的效力未定与善意取得的制度构造难以协调；物权变动的有因性对公示公信原则的伤害难以避免；有关债权合同无效是否能产生物权变动的结果问题悬而未决，无疑会使交易安全面临难以预测的风险。考虑到我国长期以来在不动产物权变动上奉行登记要件主义，担保法的适用中已出现了设定担保物权的合同效力与担保物权效力相区分的司法实践，以及《合同法》第51条“无权处分”效力未定的规定。因此，采纳物权行为无因性理论，将物权变动的效力与作为原因关系的债权合同的效力相分离并不受其影响，才能真正确立物权公示公信原则，另一方面，将《合同法》第51条的无权处分的效力未定，解释为处分行为效力未定(债权合同有效)，善意取得制度的构造才能建立在保护合法交易的基础之上。惟有如此，才能构建起我国体系严密、保护周全的交易安全制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 As for the legislative modes of the transference of property, formalism of property was adopted by German civil law. Abstraction of the juristic act of real right departs the risks of transactions from the reason relation defects from the source so that public credibility principle was established, bona fide acquisition was based on the principle of protection of effective and lawful transaction .All these ultimately form a complete system that integrates logic of the legal system to protect the safety of transactions. Japan claims meaning antagonism, in the personal property, bona fide acquisition to protect the safety of such transactions is the main legal system. In the real estate field, the predominant doctrine and cases of Japan does not recognize the registration credibility. To make up for insufficient protection of the safety of transactions, the "Japanese Civil Code", Article 94, paragraph 2 was analogized to establish the relative credibility of the registration. At the same time in properties being sold twice or ownership of property caused by the reason relation defects, questions were mainly solved with the help of the defensible validity of publication means the buyer can confront the other buyer. However, the publication antagonism always means attention to the principle of publicity due to unlimited expansion of the defensible validity of publication, or limiting the defensible validity of publication due to attention to problem of the meaning. As to the scope of "the third person" protected by the defensible validity of publication, says and cases did not adhere to the consistent position. So the safety of transactions was faced with unpredictable risks. On the other hand, the contract effectiveness directly affects the results of the transference of property, the principle of the publication credibility is difficult to establish. These problems should be sufficient warning to China’s real law makers. Compared to the German and Japanese relevant legislation and to re-examine the draft law on real right to choose formalism of credit, China seems to be repeating the mistake as well as Japan. The mode has caused practical difficulties and numerous disputes. In "Contract Law" Article 51, the effectiveness of the "dispose without authority" (claim contracts) is undetermined , which is not coordinated with the construction of bona fide acquisition. The transference of property with reason is difficult to avoid harming the principle of publication credibility. The question whether the validity of the claims effect the result of the transference of property is not solved, the safety of transactions will be faced with unpredictable risks. Given that our country has adopted effective registration in the transference of real property for a long time. In the application of the guarantee law , the validity of the contract to create the guarantee property has distinguished with the validity of guarantee property. In" Contract Law Article" 51, the effectiveness of the "dispose without authority" (claim contracts) is undetermined. Thus, we must accept abstraction of the juristic act of real right .To separate the validity of the transference of property from the validity of the contract as reasons, the principle public credibility can be truly established. In addition, the "Contract Law" Article 51 , dispose without authority is interpreted to the undetermined effect of disposal act so that bona fide acquisition in the system structure can be established on the basis of protection of legitimate transactions. Only by so doing will we be able to build up our system of strict protection and comprehensive security system transactions.更多还原