论文部分内容阅读
本案原告向被告购买小轿车,因办理过户时标的物被法院查封而不能履行过户手续,请求法院确认其为善意第三人进而确认该小轿车属其所有。本案原告是否能被认定为善意第三人曾有不同观点,但法院最终认定原告为善意第三人而判决该小轿车归原告所有。本文讨论的是,在本案的审理中未列债权人地位,而认定原告为善意第三人似有不妥之处。
In the present case, the plaintiff purchased the car from the defendant and was unable to perform the transfer formalities due to the seizure of the time scale for the transfer of the tenderers, and requested the court to confirm that the car was a bona fide third person and confirm that the car was owned by the defendant. Whether the plaintiff in the present case can be considered a goodwill third person had a different view, but the court eventually found the plaintiff a goodwill third person and sentenced the coupe owned by the plaintiff. This article discusses that, in the trial of this case, the status of creditors is not listed, and the plaintiff seems to be a goodwill third party seems inappropriate.