《民法典》对所有权保留制度进行了重大的改革,体现了形式主义和功能主义的立法政策。但《民法典》及其司法解释对所有权保留制度的模糊处理,导致民法典与司法解释、其他法律规范之间存在冲突之处。明确所有权保留制度中出卖人保留的“...《民法典》对所有权保留制度进行了重大的改革,体现了形式主义和功能主义的立法政策。但《民法典》及其司法解释对所有权保留制度的模糊处理,导致民法典与司法解释、其他法律规范之间存在冲突之处。明确所有权保留制度中出卖人保留的“所有权”在不同法律规则中的性质,一方面能使得不同法律规则的体系更加完整,另一方面也能解决一系列的问题。民法典时期所有权保留的担保功能已经成为共识,但其具有多维性,除了担保构成,还有所有权构成等不同面向。所有权保留制度中出卖人所保留的所有权既不是担保物权,也不同于普通动产所有权。出卖人保留的所有权具有特定的目的。既要限制出卖人对标的物的处分权,此外,即使没有物权变动,仍要遵循“登记对抗”主义。因此,无论是民法典内部,还是其与司法解释、其他法律规范之间的关系,均不能简单地将出卖人保留的权利认为是担保物权抑或是所有权。出卖人保留的所有权既不是一种担保权利,也不是一种所有权,应当按照该制度的目的,单独加以考察,以确定何种特性起决定性作用。The Civil Code has undergone significant reforms to the system of retention of ownership, reflecting the legislative policies of formalism and functionalism. However, the ambiguous treatment of the ownership retention system in the Civil Code and its judicial interpretations has led to conflicts between the Civil Code, judicial interpretations, and other legal norms. Clarifying the nature of the “ownership” retained by the seller in the retention of ownership system under different legal rules can not only make the system of different legal rules more complete, but also solve a series of problems. The guarantee function of ownership retention during the Civil Code period has become a consensus, but it has multidimensionality, including different aspects such as ownership composition in addition to guarantee composition. The ownership retained by the seller in the retention of ownership system is neither a security interest nor a common chattel ownership. The ownership retained by the seller has a specific purpose. It is necessary to limit the seller’s right to dispose of the subject matter, and even if there is no change in property rights, the principle of “registration confrontation” must still be followed. Therefore, whether within the Civil Code or in its relationship with judicial interpretations and other legal norms, the rights retained by the seller cannot be simply regarded as security interests or ownership. The ownership retained by the seller is neither a security right nor an ownership right, and should be examined separately according to the purpose of the system to determine which characteristics play a decisive role.展开更多
文摘《民法典》对所有权保留制度进行了重大的改革,体现了形式主义和功能主义的立法政策。但《民法典》及其司法解释对所有权保留制度的模糊处理,导致民法典与司法解释、其他法律规范之间存在冲突之处。明确所有权保留制度中出卖人保留的“所有权”在不同法律规则中的性质,一方面能使得不同法律规则的体系更加完整,另一方面也能解决一系列的问题。民法典时期所有权保留的担保功能已经成为共识,但其具有多维性,除了担保构成,还有所有权构成等不同面向。所有权保留制度中出卖人所保留的所有权既不是担保物权,也不同于普通动产所有权。出卖人保留的所有权具有特定的目的。既要限制出卖人对标的物的处分权,此外,即使没有物权变动,仍要遵循“登记对抗”主义。因此,无论是民法典内部,还是其与司法解释、其他法律规范之间的关系,均不能简单地将出卖人保留的权利认为是担保物权抑或是所有权。出卖人保留的所有权既不是一种担保权利,也不是一种所有权,应当按照该制度的目的,单独加以考察,以确定何种特性起决定性作用。The Civil Code has undergone significant reforms to the system of retention of ownership, reflecting the legislative policies of formalism and functionalism. However, the ambiguous treatment of the ownership retention system in the Civil Code and its judicial interpretations has led to conflicts between the Civil Code, judicial interpretations, and other legal norms. Clarifying the nature of the “ownership” retained by the seller in the retention of ownership system under different legal rules can not only make the system of different legal rules more complete, but also solve a series of problems. The guarantee function of ownership retention during the Civil Code period has become a consensus, but it has multidimensionality, including different aspects such as ownership composition in addition to guarantee composition. The ownership retained by the seller in the retention of ownership system is neither a security interest nor a common chattel ownership. The ownership retained by the seller has a specific purpose. It is necessary to limit the seller’s right to dispose of the subject matter, and even if there is no change in property rights, the principle of “registration confrontation” must still be followed. Therefore, whether within the Civil Code or in its relationship with judicial interpretations and other legal norms, the rights retained by the seller cannot be simply regarded as security interests or ownership. The ownership retained by the seller is neither a security right nor an ownership right, and should be examined separately according to the purpose of the system to determine which characteristics play a decisive role.
