租赁权的法律性质研究

On the Legal Nature of Leasehold

关于租赁权的性质,学界主要有债权说、物权化债权说和物权说三种观点,因受"买卖不破租赁"规则的影响,目前主流观点为物权化债权说。但是,这一观点并未严格区分租赁契约中的债权关系和物权关系,没有认识到租赁契约继续性契约的特性,有将租赁权产生原因与权利本身的性质相混淆之嫌。租赁权是对租赁物占有、使用、收益的权利,其客体是物,其权利来源系出租人对于出租物之占有、使用、收益之物权性权能的让渡,而非来源于产生租赁物交付请求权的租赁契约。因此,租赁权之性质应为用益物权,其客体包括不动产也包括动产。

There are three perspectives as to the nature of leasehold in academia, i.e. obligatory right, a materialized obligatory right and a real right. Influenced by the rule of ＂transaction cannot break the leasehold＂, the second perspective is the most popular one. But this view didn＇t see the special nature of the leasehold, confuse the cause of the leasehold with the right itself. In fact, the leasehold is a right of possession, utilization, and profits-making. The object is the substance, and it comes from the right transfer of the lessor, instead of the leasehold contract. Therefore, the nature of the leasehold should be usufruct, and the object includes not only the real estate, but also the chattel.