建筑区划内共有部分权力归属问题研究
|
摘要
近年来,我国许多地方物业管理小区有关车库、会所等公共配套设施设备使用的纠纷不断,究其原因主要在于相关产权的归属界定不清。众多业主、物业专家热切企盼《物权法》能够解决这一问题,但是从出台实施的《物权法》相关条款中我们找不到相关的明确界定。本文通过对建筑物区分所有权理论的研究,比较分析国外的相关法律法规,结合案例分析,对区分共有部分进行了界定,并对共有部分中的会所、屋顶平台、外墙面和小区绿地的权属进行了专门分析,以期有益于我国建筑物区分所有权制度的完善,有益于相关行政法规条款围绕《物权法》作出相应的调整。
本文主要研究内容及结果如下:
在建筑物区分所有权理论的基础上,通过对《物权法》中建筑物区分所有权相关条款的探讨,认为其存在建筑物区分所有权的客体不明确和共有部分的界定不明确两个问题。
通过对区分共有权内容的研究,借鉴国外的相关法律条款规定,分析共有部分的界定模式,本文认为列举法和主体与客体相结合的界定模式融合起来对公有部分进行分类较为合适,并以此对共有部分进行了较为完整的界定。
针对我国目前住宅小区车库、车位权属现状,借鉴国外及台湾的相关权属规定,分析国内学者对车库归属的三种观点,并结合对物权法相关规定的分析,本文认为车库、车位应归全体业主所有,并对解决遗留问题提出了建议。
针对现实中会所、屋顶平台、绿地、外墙面等是属于专有部分还是共用部分的争议,本文通过案例分析,结合相关的法律法规,对会所、屋顶平台、绿地、外墙面的权属作了明确的界定,并对现实中如何充分利用这些共用部分提出了合理的建议。
In recent years, many parts of China the garage area of property management, clubs and other public facilities equipment used in the dispute, the reason lies primarily related to define the ownership of property rights not pure. Many owners, property experts eagerly look forward to Property Rights can work out this problem, but from the introduction of the Property Rights we can not find the relevant provisions of the relevant defined. This text passes the research to the theories of building discriminate proprietary right, a comparative analysis of foreign-related laws, combine case analysis, had part to carry on a define to the distinction, and to the power which totally has the clubhouse, the roof platform, outside wall noodles and small area greenly belonged to carry on exclusively analytical with a view to benefit our country's building discriminate proprietary right to the sound system, the benefit of the relevant statutory provisions on Property Rights to be adjusted accordingly.
This paper studies and the results are as follows:
Classify the foundation of theories of building discriminate proprietary right, based on studying of building discriminate proprietary right in the Property Rights, think that it exists buildings objects were not clear and did not clearly defined part of the two issues.
Studying the contents of the distinction communal rights, referring to foreign-related legal provisions, and analyzing the definition model of communal parts, the paper cited law and that the giver and the receiver model of combining together to define the public part of the classification is more appropriate, with this had part to totally to carry on more for complete define .
Aim at the situation our country present of the problem that the residence area garage belongs to who. Referring to Taiwan and foreign-related legal provisions, analyze three kinds of standpoints of the local scholar to the garage ownership, the paper through the relevant provisions of the Property Rights Law, think that the garage spaces belongs to all of the owners of all, and resolving the remaining issues were proposed.
Aim at the controversies of the club building, roof terrace in the reality, green land, outside wall etc. belong to part people or all of the owners, this text passes case analysis, with related laws and regulations, to clubs, the roof platform, green, the outside walls were clearly defined ownership, and the reality of how charge the use of these shared part of a reasonable proposal.
本文主要研究内容及结果如下:
在建筑物区分所有权理论的基础上,通过对《物权法》中建筑物区分所有权相关条款的探讨,认为其存在建筑物区分所有权的客体不明确和共有部分的界定不明确两个问题。
通过对区分共有权内容的研究,借鉴国外的相关法律条款规定,分析共有部分的界定模式,本文认为列举法和主体与客体相结合的界定模式融合起来对公有部分进行分类较为合适,并以此对共有部分进行了较为完整的界定。
针对我国目前住宅小区车库、车位权属现状,借鉴国外及台湾的相关权属规定,分析国内学者对车库归属的三种观点,并结合对物权法相关规定的分析,本文认为车库、车位应归全体业主所有,并对解决遗留问题提出了建议。
针对现实中会所、屋顶平台、绿地、外墙面等是属于专有部分还是共用部分的争议,本文通过案例分析,结合相关的法律法规,对会所、屋顶平台、绿地、外墙面的权属作了明确的界定,并对现实中如何充分利用这些共用部分提出了合理的建议。
In recent years, many parts of China the garage area of property management, clubs and other public facilities equipment used in the dispute, the reason lies primarily related to define the ownership of property rights not pure. Many owners, property experts eagerly look forward to Property Rights can work out this problem, but from the introduction of the Property Rights we can not find the relevant provisions of the relevant defined. This text passes the research to the theories of building discriminate proprietary right, a comparative analysis of foreign-related laws, combine case analysis, had part to carry on a define to the distinction, and to the power which totally has the clubhouse, the roof platform, outside wall noodles and small area greenly belonged to carry on exclusively analytical with a view to benefit our country's building discriminate proprietary right to the sound system, the benefit of the relevant statutory provisions on Property Rights to be adjusted accordingly.
This paper studies and the results are as follows:
Classify the foundation of theories of building discriminate proprietary right, based on studying of building discriminate proprietary right in the Property Rights, think that it exists buildings objects were not clear and did not clearly defined part of the two issues.
Studying the contents of the distinction communal rights, referring to foreign-related legal provisions, and analyzing the definition model of communal parts, the paper cited law and that the giver and the receiver model of combining together to define the public part of the classification is more appropriate, with this had part to totally to carry on more for complete define .
Aim at the situation our country present of the problem that the residence area garage belongs to who. Referring to Taiwan and foreign-related legal provisions, analyze three kinds of standpoints of the local scholar to the garage ownership, the paper through the relevant provisions of the Property Rights Law, think that the garage spaces belongs to all of the owners of all, and resolving the remaining issues were proposed.
Aim at the controversies of the club building, roof terrace in the reality, green land, outside wall etc. belong to part people or all of the owners, this text passes case analysis, with related laws and regulations, to clubs, the roof platform, green, the outside walls were clearly defined ownership, and the reality of how charge the use of these shared part of a reasonable proposal.
引文
[1] 韩松. 物权法所有权编[M]. 中国人民大学出版社 2007 年 5 月版,第 162 页.
[2] 陈华彬. 物权法原理. 国家行政学院出版社[M].1998 年版,第 333 页.
[3] 齐恩平,许可. 论住宅区区分所有权[J]. 学术界第 122 期,2007.1,第 79 页.
[4] 齐恩平,许可. 论住宅区区分所有权[J]. 学术界第 122 期,2007.1,第 80 页.
[5] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 107 页.
[6] 闫少文. 论现代建筑物区分所有权的结构[J]. 第 3~6 页.
[7] 段启武. 建筑物区分所有权之研究[M]. 民商法论丛. 第 1 卷,第 299 页.
[8] 王利明. 论业主的建筑物区分所有权的概念[J]. 当代法学. 第 20 卷第五期,第 38 页.
[9] 高富平,黄武双. 物业权属与物业管理[M]. 中国法制出版社,2002.
[10] 裴颖. 建筑物区分所有权之共有权问题探讨[J]. 第 7 页.
[11] 王利明. 物权法论[M]. 中国政法大学出版社 1998 年版,第 360 页.
[12] 汤陈苏. 论建筑物区分所有权[M]. 法学研究 1990 年第 5 期,第 43 页.
[13] 小沼进一. 建筑物区分所有之法理,第 284 页,转引自陈华彬. 现代区分所有权制度研究[M].北京法律出版社,1995 年版,第 133 页.
[14] 小沼进一. 建筑物区分所有之法理,第 284 页,转引自陈华彬. 现代区分所有权制度研究[M]. 北京法律出版社,1995 年版,第 134 页.
[15] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 107 页.
[16] 陈华彬. 物权法原理[M]. 国家行政学院出版社,1998 年版,第 333 页.
[17] 戴东雄. 论建筑物区分所有权之理论基础[J]. 载于法学丛刊第 114 期。这是当前学者使用建筑物区分所有权时一个当然的思考前提,参见梁慧星:《物权法研究》(上),法律出版社 1998 年版,第 387 页;谢在全:《民法物权论》(上),中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 205 页;[德]鲍尔·施蒂尔纳:《德国物权法》(上),张双根译,法律出版社 2004 年版,第 634 页.
[18] 杨长泉. 论我国物权法中的建筑物区分所有权制度[J]. 黔东南民族师范高等专科学校学报. 第 24 卷第 2 期,第 10 页.
[19] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 113 页.
[20] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 113 页.
[21] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学. [M] 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 113 页.
[22] 大泽正男:“共有部分之所有关系与共有理论一一特别是中高层分让住宅场合”,《立正法学》(日本)4 卷 1 号,第 185 页。转引自陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 北京法律出版社,1995 年版,第 137 页.
[23] 吕群蓉. 建筑物区分所有权之共有权研究[J]. 第 10~11 页.
[24] 陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 法律出版社 1995 年版,第 138~139 页.
[25] 吕红光,林玲玲. 住宅小区停车位法律问题浅析[J]. 呼伦贝尔学院学报,第 14 卷第二期,第 24 页.
[26] 王利明. 中国民法案例与学理研究(物权篇)[M]. 北京法律出版社,1998 年,第 154 页.
[27] 卓洁辉. 区分所有建筑物附设停车场的比较法研究[J]. 中外房地产导报,2003 年.
[28] 陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 法律出版社,1997 年.
[29] 王洪亮. 中德私法研究[M]. 北京大学出版社,2006 年,第 275~279 页.
[30] 戴忠喜. 把住宅小区控制权交给业主——兼谈美国法中住宅小区车库、会所、绿地归属[J]. 中国房地产报,2005 年九月.
[31] 金风. 略论住宅小区车库的权属[J]. 贵州师范大学学报. 2004 年,第 4 期,第 21 页.
[32] 王利明. 论物权法中车库的归属及相关法律问题[J]. 现代法学,第 28 卷,第 5 期,第 76~81页.
[33] 蔡宇翔. 北京 278 个楼盘会所现状分析[J] 中原房地产经纪公司商业策划部,2006 年.
[34] 李国琦. 会所的现状与思考. 城市开发[J]. 2005 年第二期,第 84~85 页.
[35] 石磊. 关于商品房销售中停车位和会所权利归属的思考[J]. 陕西省经济管理干部学院学报. 第 20 卷第 1 期,第 75 页.
[36] 陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1995 年,第 128~129 页.
[37] Huxing Liang. Some opinions and suggestions on the draft of real property law. Frontiers of Law China[J],2007.4 .
[38] Thomas R. McKinnon. Origins of western attitudes toward property rights in economic thought. International Advances in Economic Research[J], 2006.1.
[39] Hyo Yoon Kang. An Exploration into Law and Narratives. The Case of Intellectual Property Law of Biotechnology, Law and Critique[J]. 2006.7:239-265.
[40] Niclas Berggren. Legal positivism and property rights: a critique of Hayek and Peczenik. Constitutional Political Economy[J]. 2006.9:217-255.
[41] Annette M. Kim. The role of property rights reforms in Warsaw’s housing market. Contributions to economics[J]. 2006.12:213-230.
[42] Clifford Sowell. Historical considerations, property rights, and budgets: A comment on the use of inputs by the Federal Reserve[J]. Public Choice,2004.11:155-159.
[43] Akira Inoue. Can a right of self-ownership be robust[J]. Law and Philosophy. 2007.1:575-587.
[44] David Lametti. Rights of Private Property in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and in the Civil Code of Quebec[J]. Review of East European Law. 2005.4:29-48.
[45] Asterios Tsioumanis. Is Policy Towards Intellectual Property Rights Addressing the Real Problems? The Case of Unauthorized Appropriation of Genetic Resources[J]. Springer Nettherlands. 2004.11: 605-616.
[46] S. C. Gulati. Environmental degradation and population movements: The role of property rights. Springer Nettherlands[J]. 2006.8: 383-408 .
[2] 陈华彬. 物权法原理. 国家行政学院出版社[M].1998 年版,第 333 页.
[3] 齐恩平,许可. 论住宅区区分所有权[J]. 学术界第 122 期,2007.1,第 79 页.
[4] 齐恩平,许可. 论住宅区区分所有权[J]. 学术界第 122 期,2007.1,第 80 页.
[5] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 107 页.
[6] 闫少文. 论现代建筑物区分所有权的结构[J]. 第 3~6 页.
[7] 段启武. 建筑物区分所有权之研究[M]. 民商法论丛. 第 1 卷,第 299 页.
[8] 王利明. 论业主的建筑物区分所有权的概念[J]. 当代法学. 第 20 卷第五期,第 38 页.
[9] 高富平,黄武双. 物业权属与物业管理[M]. 中国法制出版社,2002.
[10] 裴颖. 建筑物区分所有权之共有权问题探讨[J]. 第 7 页.
[11] 王利明. 物权法论[M]. 中国政法大学出版社 1998 年版,第 360 页.
[12] 汤陈苏. 论建筑物区分所有权[M]. 法学研究 1990 年第 5 期,第 43 页.
[13] 小沼进一. 建筑物区分所有之法理,第 284 页,转引自陈华彬. 现代区分所有权制度研究[M].北京法律出版社,1995 年版,第 133 页.
[14] 小沼进一. 建筑物区分所有之法理,第 284 页,转引自陈华彬. 现代区分所有权制度研究[M]. 北京法律出版社,1995 年版,第 134 页.
[15] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 107 页.
[16] 陈华彬. 物权法原理[M]. 国家行政学院出版社,1998 年版,第 333 页.
[17] 戴东雄. 论建筑物区分所有权之理论基础[J]. 载于法学丛刊第 114 期。这是当前学者使用建筑物区分所有权时一个当然的思考前提,参见梁慧星:《物权法研究》(上),法律出版社 1998 年版,第 387 页;谢在全:《民法物权论》(上),中国政法大学出版社 1999 年版,第 205 页;[德]鲍尔·施蒂尔纳:《德国物权法》(上),张双根译,法律出版社 2004 年版,第 634 页.
[18] 杨长泉. 论我国物权法中的建筑物区分所有权制度[J]. 黔东南民族师范高等专科学校学报. 第 24 卷第 2 期,第 10 页.
[19] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 113 页.
[20] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学[M]. 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 113 页.
[21] 卫德佳,邓禾. 房地产法学. [M] 重庆大学出版社 2006 年 5 月版,第 113 页.
[22] 大泽正男:“共有部分之所有关系与共有理论一一特别是中高层分让住宅场合”,《立正法学》(日本)4 卷 1 号,第 185 页。转引自陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 北京法律出版社,1995 年版,第 137 页.
[23] 吕群蓉. 建筑物区分所有权之共有权研究[J]. 第 10~11 页.
[24] 陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 法律出版社 1995 年版,第 138~139 页.
[25] 吕红光,林玲玲. 住宅小区停车位法律问题浅析[J]. 呼伦贝尔学院学报,第 14 卷第二期,第 24 页.
[26] 王利明. 中国民法案例与学理研究(物权篇)[M]. 北京法律出版社,1998 年,第 154 页.
[27] 卓洁辉. 区分所有建筑物附设停车场的比较法研究[J]. 中外房地产导报,2003 年.
[28] 陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 法律出版社,1997 年.
[29] 王洪亮. 中德私法研究[M]. 北京大学出版社,2006 年,第 275~279 页.
[30] 戴忠喜. 把住宅小区控制权交给业主——兼谈美国法中住宅小区车库、会所、绿地归属[J]. 中国房地产报,2005 年九月.
[31] 金风. 略论住宅小区车库的权属[J]. 贵州师范大学学报. 2004 年,第 4 期,第 21 页.
[32] 王利明. 论物权法中车库的归属及相关法律问题[J]. 现代法学,第 28 卷,第 5 期,第 76~81页.
[33] 蔡宇翔. 北京 278 个楼盘会所现状分析[J] 中原房地产经纪公司商业策划部,2006 年.
[34] 李国琦. 会所的现状与思考. 城市开发[J]. 2005 年第二期,第 84~85 页.
[35] 石磊. 关于商品房销售中停车位和会所权利归属的思考[J]. 陕西省经济管理干部学院学报. 第 20 卷第 1 期,第 75 页.
[36] 陈华彬. 现代建筑物区分所有权制度研究[M]. 北京:法律出版社,1995 年,第 128~129 页.
[37] Huxing Liang. Some opinions and suggestions on the draft of real property law. Frontiers of Law China[J],2007.4 .
[38] Thomas R. McKinnon. Origins of western attitudes toward property rights in economic thought. International Advances in Economic Research[J], 2006.1.
[39] Hyo Yoon Kang. An Exploration into Law and Narratives. The Case of Intellectual Property Law of Biotechnology, Law and Critique[J]. 2006.7:239-265.
[40] Niclas Berggren. Legal positivism and property rights: a critique of Hayek and Peczenik. Constitutional Political Economy[J]. 2006.9:217-255.
[41] Annette M. Kim. The role of property rights reforms in Warsaw’s housing market. Contributions to economics[J]. 2006.12:213-230.
[42] Clifford Sowell. Historical considerations, property rights, and budgets: A comment on the use of inputs by the Federal Reserve[J]. Public Choice,2004.11:155-159.
[43] Akira Inoue. Can a right of self-ownership be robust[J]. Law and Philosophy. 2007.1:575-587.
[44] David Lametti. Rights of Private Property in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and in the Civil Code of Quebec[J]. Review of East European Law. 2005.4:29-48.
[45] Asterios Tsioumanis. Is Policy Towards Intellectual Property Rights Addressing the Real Problems? The Case of Unauthorized Appropriation of Genetic Resources[J]. Springer Nettherlands. 2004.11: 605-616.
[46] S. C. Gulati. Environmental degradation and population movements: The role of property rights. Springer Nettherlands[J]. 2006.8: 383-408 .