特殊动产所有权的变动与对抗——《物权法》第24条及《买卖合同解释》第10条第4项评析

The Change and Confrontation of Special Movable Property Ownership——Comment on Article 24 of Chinese Real Right Law and Article 10( 4) of the Judicial Interpretation of Contract of Sales

就特殊动产所有权变动,＂交付说＂的构造意味着对第三人的恶意推定,不论是最高人民法院采纳的＂交付生效＋登记对抗说＂,还是＂登记亦得生效说＂,皆几无适用余地。就海船所有权让与,＂合意生效说＂最合乎法之客观目的,但就船舶、航空器和机动车,应加以区别规制。《物权法》第24条当是法律移植失败的范本,解释论难有作为,亟待立法机关审慎择定立场。

As for the special movable property ownership alternation,the structure of delivery effectiveness registration confrontation implies the malicious presumption of the third party,therefore no matter what the Supreme People＇s Court adopted,delivery effectiveness registration confrontation theory or registration must be effective,or there is no room for application. As for the ownership of seagoing vessels,the doctrine of consent to take effect is most consistent with the objective purpose of law,but ship,aircraft and vehicle should be regulated separately. Article 24 is a template for the failure of legal transplantation,and relevant interpretations are weak in Chinese Real Right Law,it is urgent for the legislature to choose its position prudently.