河南财经政法大学学报
河南財經政法大學學報
하남재경정법대학학보
Journal of Henan Administrative Institute of Politics and Law
2013年
3期
85~94
,共null页
善意 不动产 登记 不应知
善意 不動產 登記 不應知
선의 불동산 등기 불응지
bona fide ; real estate ; registration ; should not know
不动产善意取得对于第三人善意的要求，是与动产一样，要求第三人对处分人无处分权“不知且不应知”，还是仅要求“不知”，存在不同看法。从解释论角度，以文义、体系和逻辑、立法、比较法等诸方面解释，都应作与动产善意取得相同解释。德国民法、理论学说不应作为解释依据。从立法论角度，德国标准，排除了“不应知”，不仅保护对登记将信将疑者，而且保护基本不信者甚至完全不信者，违背了信赖保护的本质和意义，并不可取。从我国国情出发，采“不知且不应知”更合理。善意的认定，应由否定第三人善意的权利人举证。要求第三人实际查阅登记簿没有必要，但占有、交付可作为认定是否善意的依据。若登记人与占有人一致，或登记人能现实交付不动产，受让人即为善意。
不動產善意取得對于第三人善意的要求，是與動產一樣，要求第三人對處分人無處分權“不知且不應知”，還是僅要求“不知”，存在不同看法。從解釋論角度，以文義、體繫和邏輯、立法、比較法等諸方麵解釋，都應作與動產善意取得相同解釋。德國民法、理論學說不應作為解釋依據。從立法論角度，德國標準，排除瞭“不應知”，不僅保護對登記將信將疑者，而且保護基本不信者甚至完全不信者，違揹瞭信賴保護的本質和意義，併不可取。從我國國情齣髮，採“不知且不應知”更閤理。善意的認定，應由否定第三人善意的權利人舉證。要求第三人實際查閱登記簿沒有必要，但佔有、交付可作為認定是否善意的依據。若登記人與佔有人一緻，或登記人能現實交付不動產，受讓人即為善意。
불동산선의취득대우제삼인선의적요구，시여동산일양，요구제삼인대처분인무처분권“불지차불응지”，환시부요구“불지”，존재불동간법。종해석론각도，이문의、체계화라집、입법、비교법등제방면해석，도응작여동산선의취득상동해석。덕국민법、이론학설불응작위해석의거。종입법론각도，덕국표준，배제료“불응지”，불부보호대등기장신장의자，이차보호기본불신자심지완전불신자，위배료신뢰보호적본질화의의，병불가취。종아국국정출발，채“불지차불응지”경합리。선의적인정，응유부정제삼인선의적권리인거증。요구제삼인실제사열등기부몰유필요，단점유、교부가작위인정시부선의적의거。약등기인여점유인일치，혹등기인능현실교부불동산，수양인즉위선의。
There are two different viewpoints on the requirements to the third party＇ s good faith of the bona fide acquisition：one of those regards that the third party ＂doesn＇t know and should not know＂ the unauthorized disposal,just the same with the bona fide acquisition of movable. The other thinks that the third party only ＂doesn＇t know＂ is ok. From the view of interpretation theory, that the interpretation from literal, system and logic of law, legislation, comparative law and so on should be made with the same interpretation of bona fide acquisition of movable. The German civil law and the theory should not be a basis of interpretation. From the view of legislative theory, the German standard, which contraries to the essence and significance of trust protection, ruled out the third party who should not know and, it protect the person who half believes, doesn＇ t believe or absolutely not believes in the real estate registration. From the situation of our country, it is more reasonable to adopt the third party should be ＂does not know and should not know＂. It is the responsibility of those who ne- gate the third party＇ s good faith shall bear the burden of proof of good-faith recognition. It is not necessary to require the third party to actually refer to the registration. But the possession and delivery may serve as the proof of determining good faith or not. The assignee is in good faith if the registration and the possessor are consistent, or registration can actually deliver the immovable property.
