摘要
不动产善意取得对于第三人善意的要求,是与动产一样,要求第三人对处分人无处分权"不知且不应知",还是仅要求"不知",存在不同看法。从解释论角度,以文义、体系和逻辑、立法、比较法等诸方面解释,都应作与动产善意取得相同解释。德国民法、理论学说不应作为解释依据。从立法论角度,德国标准,排除了"不应知",不仅保护对登记将信将疑者,而且保护基本不信者甚至完全不信者,违背了信赖保护的本质和意义,并不可取。从我国国情出发,采"不知且不应知"更合理。善意的认定,应由否定第三人善意的权利人举证。要求第三人实际查阅登记簿没有必要,但占有、交付可作为认定是否善意的依据。若登记人与占有人一致,或登记人能现实交付不动产,受让人即为善意。
There are two different viewpoints on the requirements to the third party＇ s good faith of the bona fide acquisition：one of those regards that the third party ＂doesn＇t know and should not know＂ the unauthorized disposal,just the same with the bona fide acquisition of movable. The other thinks that the third party only ＂doesn＇t know＂ is ok. From the view of interpretation theory, that the interpretation from literal, system and logic of law, legislation, comparative law and so on should be made with the same interpretation of bona fide acquisition of movable. The German civil law and the theory should not be a basis of interpretation. From the view of legislative theory, the German standard, which contraries to the essence and significance of trust protection, ruled out the third party who should not know and, it protect the person who half believes, doesn＇ t believe or absolutely not believes in the real estate registration. From the situation of our country, it is more reasonable to adopt the third party should be ＂does not know and should not know＂. It is the responsibility of those who ne- gate the third party＇ s good faith shall bear the burden of proof of good-faith recognition. It is not necessary to require the third party to actually refer to the registration. But the possession and delivery may serve as the proof of determining good faith or not. The assignee is in good faith if the registration and the possessor are consistent, or registration can actually deliver the immovable property.
出处
《河南财经政法大学学报》
北大核心
2013年第3期85-94,共10页
Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law
关键词
善意
不动产
登记
不应知
bona fide
real estate
registration
should not know
