论不动产合同纠纷管辖——以诉讼请求权的性质为中心

On the Jurisdiction of Estate Contract Dissensions——From the Character of Litigation Request

我国民事诉讼法对合同纠纷和不动产纠纷分别确定了不同的管辖方式,单从字面上理解,不动产合同纠纷似应专属管辖。但这种理解不仅与各国相关经验大异其趣,而且也没有得到实践的认可。司法实践尝试从合同类型划分着手,对不动产合同纠纷的管辖进行区别对待,但收效甚微。诉讼请求权的性质是确立管辖方式的客观基础,应以此为出发点,将不动产合同纠纷分解为不动产物权纠纷和不动产债权纠纷,前者适用专属管辖,后者则纳入合同管辖的范围。在解释论上,宜对《民事诉讼法》第34条中的"因不动产纠纷提起的诉讼"进行"目的性限缩"式的漏洞补充,即限定为因不动产物权纠纷提起的诉讼。

Chinese civil procedure law prescribes different jurisdiction modes for contract dissensions and real property dissensions.Literally,estate contract dissensions should be included in exclusive jurisdiction.But such comprehension is neither compatible with oversea experience nor certificated in practice.Legal practice tried to confirm the type of contract and take different jurisdiction to treat estate property lawsuits differently,but achieved little.The character of litigation request is the objective base for the settlement of jurisdiction,so it should be taken to break estate contract dissension into real estate dissension and real estate creditor＇s right dissension,with the former included and dominated in estate lawsuits and the latter in contract jurisdiction.From the theory of explanation,it is appropriate to revise with teleologische reduktion the words ＂lawsuit arose by estate dissension＂ in article 34 of Civil Procedure Law into ＂lawsuit arose by real estate dissension.＂