중국 물권법의 물권법정주의(제5조)에 관한 연구
关于中国物权法上的物权法定主义(第5条) 的研究 - The Numerus Clausus in the Property Act of the People’s Republic of China(2007) -
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this article, the numerus clausus principle and its application in the Property Act of the People’s Republic of China(2007), are discussed. To begin with, we introduce the discussion with a general survey of China Property Act in its making. At some disputes and after the outcome of six drafts of property law, the article 5 of China Property Act prescribes expressly the principle, which says, the types and content of property rights(so-called Typenzwang and Typenfixierung) shall be stipulated by laws. In the article, the focus is on the numerus clausus principle of this act. The numerus clausus principle has been recognized as one of the basic principles of the civil law of property and has its roots in roman law, some states in the civil law system have express rules, in there civil Code or show equal doctrines and judicial practices. China has the same position as the former, so has a express recognition, and limits property rights in their number and content. In this meaning, it limits the principle of private autonomy in the field of property law. An obvious problem of the issue is, that, we think, the numerus clausus principle results in a closed property rights system and cannot get promptly new types of property rights arising from the need of society and economic dealings. In this view, it needs the flexibility. For it, there are some suggestions. Guided only by the customary law, which is expounded by many scholars, the courts may create new real rights as they see fit. This issue is beside the question in Korean civil Code(art. 185), because it says,no real rights can be created at will, other than what is provided by act or customary law. This study offers us some useful suggestions, as one of the recent and comparative legislation, for the amendment of Korean civil Code, which has been newly begun since 2009.
Abstract
In this article, the numerus clausus principle and its application in the Property Act of the People’s Republic of China(2007), are discussed. To begin with, we introduce the discussion with a general survey of China Property Act in its making. At some disputes and after the outcome of six drafts of property law, the article 5 of China Property Act prescribes expressly the principle, which says, the types and content of property rights(so-called Typenzwang and Typenfixierung) shall be stipulated by laws. In the article, the focus is on the numerus clausus principle of this act. The numerus clausus principle has been recognized as one of the basic principles of the civil law of property and has its roots in roman law, some states in the civil law system have express rules, in there civil Code or show equal doctrines and judicial practices. China has the same position as the former, so has a express recognition, and limits property rights in their number and content. In this meaning, it limits the principle of private autonomy in the field of property law. An obvious problem of the issue is, that, we think, the numerus clausus principle results in a closed property rights system and cannot get promptly new types of property rights arising from the need of society and economic dealings. In this view, it needs the flexibility. For it, there are some suggestions. Guided only by the customary law, which is expounded by many scholars, the courts may create new real rights as they see fit. This issue is beside the question in Korean civil Code(art. 185), because it says,no real rights can be created at will, other than what is provided by act or customary law. This study offers us some useful suggestions, as one of the recent and comparative legislation, for the amendment of Korean civil Code, which has been newly begun since 2009.
참고문헌 (57)
- 곽윤직, "물권법, 제7판" (2002), 박영사
- 송덕수, "신민법강의, 제3판" (2010), 박영사
- 김성수, "중국의 2007년 新물권법(｢중화인민공화국 물권법｣)에 관한 연구(1)-(4)", 사법행정제, 48(6) (2007)
- 梁慧星, "中国物权法研究(上)" (1998), 法律出版社
- 梁慧星, "物权法草案建议稿" (2000), 社会科学文献出版社
- 梁慧星, "中国民法典草案建议稿" (2003), 法律出版社
- 梁慧星, "中国民法典草案建议稿附理由(物权编)" (2004), 法律出版社
- 梁慧星, "物权法. 第四版" (2007), 法律出版社
- 王利明, "物权法研究(修订版)(上卷ㆍ下卷)" (2007), 中国人民大学出版社
- 王利明, "物权法论" (1998), 中国政法大学出版社
- 王利明, "物权法名家讲坛" (2008), 中国人民大学出版社
- 王利明, "中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由(物权编)" (2005), 法律出版社
- 王利明, "中国民法典学者建议稿及说明" (2004), 中国法制出版社
- 王利明, "中国物权法教程" (2007), 人民法院出版社
- 王利明, "民法学, 第二版" (2008), 法律出版社
- 江平, "中和人民共和国物权法精解" (2007), 中国政法大学出版社
- 江平, "物权法" (2009), 法律出版社
- 江平, "中国物权法教程" (2007), 知识产权出版社
- 孙淑云, "物权法" (2009), 中国政法大学出版社
- 朱岩, "中国物权法评注" (2007), 北京大学出版社
- 梅夏英, "物权法教程" (2007), 中国人民大学出版社
- 孙宪忠, "论物权法(修订版)" (2008), 法律出版社
- 孙宪忠, "中国物权总论(第二版)" (2009), 法律出版社
- 孟勤国, "物权二元结构论－中国物权制度的理论重构, 第三版" (2009), 人民法院出版社
- 吴道霞, "物权法比较研究" (2004), 中国人民大学出版社
- 尹田, "物权法理论评析与思考" (2004), 中国人民大学出版社
- 周林彬, "物权法新论" (2002), 北京大学出版社
- 陈华彬, "物权法" (2004), 法律出版社
- 谢在全, "民法物权论, 上册" (1999), 中国政法大学出版社
- 马俊驹, "民法原论, 第三版" (2007), 法律出版社
- 王果纯, "现代物权法" (1993), 湖南师范大学出版社
- 马俊驹, "物权法" (2007), 复旦大学出版社
- 屈茂辉, "物权法ㆍ总则" (2005), 中国法制出版社
- 滕晓春, "《中华人民共和国物权法》释义" (2007), 立信会计出版社
- 全国人大常委会法制工作委员会民法室, "中华人民共和国物权法：条文说明ㆍ立法理由及相关规定" (2007), 北京大学出版社
- 全国人大常委法制工作委员会民法室, "物权法(草案)参考" (2005), 中国民主法制出版社
- 杨立新, "细说物权法新概念与新规则" (2007), 吉林人民出版社
- 徐国栋, "绿色民法典" (2004), 社会科学文献出版社
- 曾大鹏, "建筑物用益物权制度研究－以权利体系的建构为中心" (2009), 法律出版社
- 陶百川, "最新綜合六法全書" (2009), 三民書局
- 段匡, "德国ㆍ法国以及日本法中的物权法定主义", 民商法论丛, 7 (1997), 法律出版社
- 王竹, "论《民法通则》与《物权法(草案)》的合宪性", 判解研究, (3) (2006)
- 崔建远, "我国物权法应选取的结构原则", 法制与社会发展, (3) (1995)
- 刘乃忠, "论地役权对物权法定原则漏洞的补充", 武汉大学学报(社会科学版), 54(3) (2001)
- 梁慧星, "物权法草案(第六次审议稿)解读: “物权法定”还是“物权自由”", 私法研究, 6 (2008)
- 梁慧星, "对物权法草案(第五次审议稿)的修改意见", 私法研究, 6 (2008)
- 杨代雄, "物权法定原则批判－兼评《中华人民共和国物权法》第五条", 法制与社会发展, (4) (2007)
- 张鹏, "美国法上的物权法定原则", 法学, (10) (2003)
- 王立争, "美国法上物权法定原则及相关问题－与张同志商榷", 法学, (4) (2004)
- "论物权法定原则"[URL]
- "关于物权法草案(全民征求意见稿)的意见和建议"[URL]
- 梁上上, "物权法定主义: 在自由与强制之间", 法学研究, (3) (2003)
- 李瀚琳, "论物权法定原则的缓和(상)", 经济与法, (11) (2009)
- "物权法定原则的历史"[URL]
- "地役权补充物权法定原则的学说及其漏洞"[URL]
- "物权法(草案). 违宪风波专题手记－对‘违宪风波’的学术观察与评价"[URL]
- "中华人民共和国物权法释义(제5조)"[URL]