【作者】 王旭军；

【导师】 刘善春；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 2007年颁布实施的《中华人民共和国物权法》对不动产登记机构的审查职责做出了明确的规定,这意味着登记机构在登记过程中的审查将更加严格。于此情形之下,如果当事人对不动产登记的合法性提出质疑,向人民法院提起行政诉讼,法院应当如何转变传统的“形式审查方式”去评价新型登记审查模式下的不动产登记行为?具体一点说,法官应当采用什么样的审查标准来公平、公正地审理不动产登记案件?这是本文着力研究的核心问题。文章首先阐明为何要选择不动产登记司法审查标准作为研究的课题,之后对不动产登记中几个较为模糊的问题依次进行了辨析:其一,关于不动产登记的审查模式到底是形式审还是实质审的问题上,文章通过对法国、澳大利亚、德国登记审查模式的对比,结合物权法的有关规定对我国不动产登记审查模式进行了定位,即不完全意义上的实质化转型。其二,关于不动产登记是民事行为还是行政行为的问题上,笔者主张为后者。其三,关于登记是确权还是确认的问题上,文章坚持为确认而非确权。其四,关于登记是否为许可的问题上,文章予以否认并论述了二者的区别与联系。然后从理论层面出发,对不动产登记司法审查及其标准的概念进行了界定,阐明不动产登记司法审查的标准就是评判或衡量不动产登记是否合法的尺度。其次,为了更好地把握不动产登记司法审查的标准,文章在比较了域外司法审查目的基础上,对我国不动产登记司法审查的目的进行了定位。同时采用比较法对国外的司法审查标准进行了系统的对比分析,笔者分别选取了英美法系的代表国家美国和英国以及大陆法系代表国家德国和法国的司法审查标准作为样本,并对这些国家的司法审查标准进行了归纳,总结出两大法系在司法审查标准方面的发展趋势和规律。之后对不动产登记司法审查标准存在的问题进行了剖析,并对造成现状的成因进行了分析,对不动产登记实质化转型后建立司法审查标准面临的新挑战做了系统的阐述。在此基础上提出,在我国的法治背景下,确立不动产登记司法审查标准应当树立的理念。包括:标准的确立要合乎审查目的内在要求;标准的确立应注重对实质纠纷的解决;强弱要适宜,深浅要适度;合法性审查与合理性审查要有机结合;要尊重物权公示公信、物权法定及一物一权原则;物权要平等保护;登记程序要正当等。在此基础上文章提出了本文的主要创新思想和内容。首先作者就从方法论的角度提出了对登记程序中的物权原因行为进行分析来建立不动产登记司法审查标准的一种理论,即人民法院在审理不动产登记行政案件中,主要审查登记机关在登记过程中,是否对赖以登记的物权原因行为(即实体法上的权利义务关系)依照法定的程序进行了实质性的调查、核实,并是否根据调查核实的结果在法律允许的权限范围之内作出是否予以登记的合理判断,以此来评价不动产登记的合法性。然后阐述了物权原因行为分析法形成的理论与实践基础,接着论证了采用物权原因行为分析法对不动产登记进行司法审查的必要性及可行性。最后,文章理性地表明了在采用物权原因行为分析法来把握不动产登记案件的审查标准时,要充分注意司法审查权的自限性。在前面充分阐述了物权原因行为分析理论的基础上,就如何将该理论运用于不动产登记司法审查实践来建立对应的司法审查标准的类型化研究。文章首先以物权的流转形态为界分点来求证相应的审查标准。包括:不动产物权设立登记的审查标准;不动产物权变更登记的审查标准;不动产物权注销登记的审查标准。其次以登记行为的合法性为基准来求证相应的审查标准。包括:不动产登记证据审查标准及证明标准;不动产登记法律适用的衡量标准;不动产登记程序的审查标准;不动产登记超越职权的认定标准;不动产登记滥用职权的评价标准。最后文章借鉴英美法系的判例制度来弥补、完善这种缺憾。首先介绍了判例制度的英美经验,然后回顾了我国案例指导制度的历史渊源和当代的发展。在此基础上,笔者论述了在不动产登记司法审查中采用案例指导制度的必要性。最后,作者就如何架构不动产登记司法审查判例制度谈了自己的看法和主张。更多还原

【Abstract】 The responsibility of Real Estate Registry is clearly provided by The Property Law of the People’s Republic of China in 2007. It results in that examination of registration becomes stricter. In this case, if the legality of real estate registration conduct is challenged, and such suitcases are brought to people’s court of justice, the question will lie in how traditional trial models are transferred. That is to say, what criteria of judicial review should judges adopt to cope with this kind of cases fairly and impartially. This is the focal point of this dissertation.At first, the basic question is put forward and answered in this chapter. It clarifies the reason why this theme is chosen to study. Then a few vague topics are analyzed. First, as for the examination model of real estate registration, is it formal or substantive? In this dissertation, relevant clauses of the Property Law of the People’s Republic of China are compared with French, Australian and German practices. In China, the examination model is relatively substantive examination. Second, is real estate registration civil conduct or administrative conduct? The latter is preferred here. Third, is real estate registration to grant rights or to affirm rights? The latter is preferred, too. Fourth, does registration equal permission? It is held that they are not the same. On the contrary, there are some differences and relations between them. At the end of this chapter, the purport and significance, together with the standpoint and methodology of the study, are briefly introduced. Then judicial review and its criteria on real estate registration are defined in theory, and the purpose of judicial review on real estate registration is defined, compared with other countries’regulations. At the same time, criteria of judicial review in the Common Legal System and the Civil Legal System countries, such as the US, UK, Germany and France, are compared with each other. The general tendency and objective law of development on judicial review criteria are induced. Problems of criteria on real estate registration are analyzed, then causes of such problems are dissected. Following this, challenges are systematically elaborated stemming from the change of examination model on real estate registration as well as the transfer of criteria of judicial review. Based on the comparison, principles to establish criteria of judicial review on real estate registration are hereby suggested. Criteria should tally with purposes of judicial review. Intensity and depth should be moderated. Legality and reasonableness should be combined. Principles of property rights should be obeyed. Property should be protected equally. Procedures of registration should be legal. Based on these, the most important new ideas and content is emphasized in this part. At first, theories about analytive method on sources of property rights are created. It is suggested that judges should examine whether sources of property rights have been investigated and checked according to statutory procedures, and assess rationally within its power. Then jurisprudence and practice of this theory are discussed. After this, necessity and feasibility of this theory are analyzed. At the end of this chapter, judicial self-restraint is reminded in the process of using the theory.Then this dissertation focuses on how to use this theory to deal with real estate registration administration cases. In the first part, criteria of judicial review according with transformation of property are discussed, including real estate property founding registration, changing registration and canceling registration. In the second part, criteria of judicial review according to legality of registration conduct are discussed, including evidence ,law, procedure and registration power. At the end of this dissertation, the precedent system is imitated as supplement . First, success of precedents in the Common Law System is introduced. Second, origin and development of Chinese case law system is stated. On basis of these, necessity of precedent system for real estate registration administrative cases is discussed. At the end of this chapter, how to establish precedent system of judicial review about real estate registration is suggested.更多还原