论文部分内容阅读
本文从一则兼具机动车物权变动、担保物权及其善意取得、表见代理三项要素的典型案例出发,以其间的核心论辩与关键裁判为中心,作解释论探讨。《物权法》第24条下的机动车物权变动,应遵循“交付生效+登记对抗”规则。但就机动车设立质权,仍应遵循《物权法》第212条的交付生效规则。质权的善意取得存在经移转取得和经创设取得两种方式,本案涉及的是经创设而善意取得质权,作为信赖基础的权利外观指向的是机动车所有权,根据“交付生效+登记对抗”规则,应以占有和登记兼具为准。新近的司法实践修正了《合同法》第51条在无权处分合同效力问题上的立场,此外质权善意取得的成立也应以有效的合同为基础。机动车登记证书并非权利外观本身,但无视登记证书上所有人与实际处分人的不一致,可能构成非善意,举证责任应落在真实权利人一方。本案的论辩和裁判存在混淆善意取得与表见代理之处,对此应予以明确区分。
This article starts with a typical case that includes the change of real rights in motor vehicles, the security interest and the goodwill acquisition and the representation of the three elements of the agency, with the core arguments and key referees as the center. “Property Law” Article 24 changes in motor vehicle ownership, should follow the “delivery of effective + registration confrontation ” rule. However, the establishment of a motor vehicle pledge should still follow the “Property Law” Article 212 of the delivery of the rules in force. The acquisition of the goodwill of pledge consists of the acquisition of the good and the acquisition of the good after it was acquired. The present case involves the acquisition of the pledge in good faith after the creation of the pledge. The appearance of the right as the basis of trust is the ownership of the motor vehicle, Confrontation "rule, should be both possession and registration shall prevail. The recent judicial practice amends the position of Article 51 of the Contract Law on the issue of the power to dispose of the contract. In addition, the acquisition of the pledge of good faith should also be based on a valid contract. Motor vehicle registration certificate is not the appearance of the right itself, but disregarding the inconsistency between the owner of the registration certificate and the actual disposer may constitute a non-goodwill. The burden of proof should fall on the real owner. The arguments and referees in this case have confused the goodwill acquisition and the representation with the agent, and should be clearly distinguished from each other.