论文部分内容阅读
在马尼托瓦克(中国)租赁有限公司与淄博国泰起重吊装工程有限公司等融资租赁合同纠纷案(以下简称马尼托瓦克与淄博国泰等融资租赁合同纠纷案)中,一二审法院均认定涉案车辆所有权属于出租人,但是对所有人所享有的抵押权之效力却持不同观点。一审法院认为抵押权未成功设立,因为抵押合同违反了法律或社会公共利益,也违反了一物一权原则。二审法院实际上肯定了抵押权效力。两级法院的论证均存在不充分之处。抵押权的存在是因为名义所有人与实际所有人错位,抵押合同并无无效事由,考虑到融资租赁行业的发展,在我国统一融资租赁登记制度尚未完善之前,司法不宜否认其抵押权效力。
Among the dispute over financing lease contract between Manitowoc (China) Leasing Co., Ltd. and Zibo Cathay Pacific Lifting and Lifting Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as dispute over financing lease contract between Manitowoc and Zibo Cathay Pacific), the first and second trials The court held that ownership of the vehicle involved belonged to the lessor, but held different opinions on the effectiveness of the mortgage enjoyed by all. The court of first instance held that the mortgage right was not established successfully because the mortgage contract violated the law or the public interests and violated the principle of one and the same thing. Court of second instance in fact affirmed the effectiveness of the mortgage. Both levels of courts have inadequate justification. The existence of the mortgage is because the owner of the title is misplaced with the actual owner and there is no valid reason for the mortgage contract. Considering the development of the finance lease industry, the judicial system should not deny the effectiveness of the mortgage before the unified financial lease registration system in our country is not perfect.