作者：庄加园
作者介绍：上海交通大学凯原法学院副教授，法学博士
出版日期：2018年2月9日
内容提要 所有权移转适用合意原则的国家之所以采取登记对抗主义,目的在于保护善意受让人、维护交易安全。与之不同,我国动产所有权移转采用交付原则,在无权处分时适用善意取得规则,以保护交易信赖。学界主流意见将《物权法》第24条解释为独立的物权变动模式,这使得特殊动产适用的物权变动规则成为疑问,且与善意取得制度发生功能上的重叠。采用登记对抗主义还会引入与债物两分体系不容的"不完全所有权"的概念,创设一系列不必要的对抗规则。《物权法》第24条若要融入现有物权变动体系,就不宜被解释为独立的物权变动要件。而特殊动产仍应适用普通动产物权变动的一般规则:以现实交付为主,观念交付为辅。《物权法》第24条仅限于实现无权处分之下的交易安全保护,只是重复《物权法》第106条的法律效果。为避免不必要的理论争议和法律适用的混乱,该条在民法典编纂中应被尽早废止。
关键词 登记对抗主义 不完全物权 物权变动模式 善意取得
Abstract: Some countries in which the transfer of ownership applies to the principle of consent adopt the registration confrontation doctrine, which aims to protect the bona fide assignees and preserve the transaction security. On the contrary, the transfer of the ownership of movable property in China adopts the principle of delivery and the rules of acquisition in good faith are applied to the unauthorized disposition, which protect the trade trust. The mainstream opinion of the academia interprets article 24 of the Property Law as an independent property change mode, which makes the rule of property change applicable to special movable property become doubtful and overlap with the system of acquisition in good faith functionally. Adopting the registration confrontation doctrine will also introduce the concept of " incomplete ownership" which contradicts with the property right and obligation right dichotomy system, creating a series of unnecessary confrontation rules. If article 24 of the Property Law is incorporated into the existing system of property change, it is inappropriate to be interpreted into independent elements of property change. The special movable property should apply to the general rules of ordinary movable property change: using the principle of delivery as the primary means supplemented by the conceptual delivery. Article 24 of the Property Law is only limited to realize the security of the transaction under the unauthorized disposition, which only repeats the legal effect of article 106 of the Property Law. In order to avoid unnecessary theoretical controversy and the confusion of law application, this article should be abolished in the codification of the Civil Code sooner.