优先购买权研究

【作者】 张友煌；

【导师】 胡晓宏；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 民事法律中有诸多优先权的规定，民事优先权制度中，尤以优先购买权最为复杂，它几乎涉及了民法总则、债、物权、亲属、继承各编，其存废也颇有争议。我国现行法律中有房屋承租人先买权、共有人先买权、合伙人先买权、股东先买权等具体先买权的分散规定，但迄未形成统一的先买权法律制度。本文试通过对有关先买权法律规定的研究，探析其法理基础，对先买权作一浅析。 文章首先梳理了先买权制度在中外法中的历史沿革，认为由于我国古代内向的、封闭的小农社会与宗法制度形成了不同于西方的先买权制度。同时也分析了罗马法与日耳曼法在先买权制度中的不同走向。在简要列举中外各国、地区法律关于先买权规定的基础上，分析先买权的性质、效力、种类、行使条件、特征及共存先买权的顺位等。 关于先买权的性质，学界有请求权说、形成权说、附条件形成权说、物权取得权说、折衷说、期待权说、物权或债权说等不同观点，文章通过对各学说的优劣分析，认为附条件形成权说较为允当。此处非权利本身附条件，而是权利的行使附条件，即先买权的行使附物之出卖与同等条件两个停止条件。对于先买权的效力，应当视不同种类的先买权而定。有的具有物权效力，如承租人的先买权；有的仅具有债权效力，如共有人的先买权。不能不加区别地一概认为先买权具有物权效力或仅具有债权效力。 先买权的法律规定散乱，种类也繁多。区分法定先买权与约定先买权具有实际意义，法定先买权基于不同的法律规定具有物权效力或债权效力，而约定先买权只具有债权效力，不能对抗第三人；法定先买权不得预先抛弃，约定先买权得预先抛弃。基于物权产生的先买权不能等同于物权先买权，同样，基于债权产生的先买权也不等同于债权先买权，不能将权利的基础法律行为的性质、效力等同于权利本身的性质、效力。由于动产与不动产本身价值、形态的不同以及物权变动公示的规定不同，动产先买权与不动产先买权的行使的具体条件也有所不同。区分动产先买权与不动产先买权具有实际意义。此外，按权利主体的人数分，先买权可分为单一先买权与多数人先买权，按出卖物是否为可分物分，先买权可分为可分物先买权与不可分物先买权，还有公法上的先买权与私法上的先买权，普通法上的先买权与特别法上的先买权等多种分类。 文章认为先买权的行使应当具有以下条件：基础法律行为合法有效，在财产出卖之时方可行使，在特定的买卖中行使，在同等条件下行使，在一定期限内行使，为自身利益行使，一般不得转让、继承。法律一般不规定先买权行使的条件，理论上对于何为同等条件也众说不一。文章认为同等条件应当包括同等价格条件、同等价款支付条件、同等债权担保条件、同等违约责任条件等，这里的同等不应要求绝对的等同。 在以上分析的基础上，文章概括先买权具有权利来源的多样性、权利主体的特定性、效力的多样性、权利行使的条件性、权利行使的限制性、权利之不可转让性等特征。并认为在发生多个先买权意存时，物权性先买权优先于债权性先买权，法定先买权优先于约定先买权，物权性先买权竞存时，公示在先者优先，债权性先买权竞存时，原则上无优先可言，但立法中不妨规定己按物权公示要求进行交付或登记者优先。 ·2· 通过以上分析，文章结合我国大陆及台湾地区法律，参照大陆法系法、德、瑞、日、意、俄等国民法典中有关先买权的规定，对各类具体的先买权分别论述。包括共有人先买权、房屋承租人先买权、典权人先买权、合伙人先买权、股东先买权、地上权人先买权。永佃权人先买权、土地承租人先买权、耕地承租人先买权、继承人先买权等法定先买权，以及约定先买权。不同种类的先买权的性质、效力、行使条件不尽一致，即使是同一种类的先买权，各国法律规定也不尽相同。约定先买权中引入强制缔约理论，二者并不冲突。 最后，文章批评了主张废除先买权制度的观点，认为先买权制度虽存在自身的不足与缺陷，但可以通过理论的研究和立法、司法的实践予以逐步解决。先买权制度的出现是历史发展的结果，其存在具有重要的现实意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 There are many regulations about priority in civil law. The preemptive right is the most complicated one among all the civil rights of priority, it is mentioned in many sections of civil law such as general principles of civil law,obligations, real rights, domestic nelations, inheritance and so on, and it’s existence is still be questioned by many scholars. In current in effect laws of our country, there are some sporadic regulations about the preemptive right of renter, part owner, copartner and shareholder, but haven’t formed an uniform legal system about it. Based on the research of some legal regulations about the preemptive right, the author tries to inquire into its academic legal foundation and give his own opinions about it.First, the author studied the history of the preemptive right in both China and foreign countries, he thinks it is the endocentric and close character of petty farmer society and patriarchal clan system of ancient China that made the preemptive right in China different from the western countries. Then the author analyzes the different trends of the preemptive right system in both Roman and German laws. After succinctly enumerated the legal regulations of the preemptive right in different countries and areas, the author explains their characters, effectiveness,categories, qualifications to use, characteristics and the using orders of the concomitant the preemptive rights.Concerning the characters of the preemptive right, different scholars have different opinions, for example, regard it as the right of claim, the right of formation, the conditional right of formation, the right of gaining real right, the expectative right, the real right, the claim or the compromise of the above. After analyzed the advantages and the disadvantages of the above theories, the author considers that the theory of the conditional right of formation is comparatively felicitous. The author emphasizes that the conditional right of formation doesn’t mean the right itself is conditional but mean this right can only be performed with certain qualifications, that is, the performance of the preemptive right must fit two qualifications: the sale of the object and the same qualification. The effectiveness of the preemptive right is determined by the category it belongs to. For example, the preemptive right of renter has the effectiveness of real right, while the preemptive right of part owner has only the effectiveness of claim. So we should distinguish the effectiveness of the preemptive right according to its category.There are many different kinds of sporadic laws to regulate the preemptive right. It has practical meaning to distinguish the legal preemptive right and the conventional preemptive right. The legal preemptiveright is regulated in different laws, so it has the effectiveness of real right or claim, while the conventional preemptive right only has the effectiveness of claim, so it can’t be used to antagonize the third party. The legal preemptive right can’t be discarded in advance, while the conventional preemptive right can. The preemptive right based on real right is different from the preemptive right based on claim, similarly the preemptive right resulting from claim isn’t equal to the preemptive right of claim. So we shouldn’t equate the character and effectiveness of the right’s basic legal action with the character and effectiveness of the right itself. As movables and real estate are different in their values, forms and the regulations about their public revelation when real right changed, the qualifications to perform them are also different. So it is practically meaningful to distinguish the preemptive right of movables and real estate. In addition, according to the number of individuals, the preemptive right can be divided into single-preemptive-right and multi- preemptive-right; according to whether the object is for sale can be divided, the preemptive right can be classified into the preemptive right of can-be-divided-objects and can-not-be-divided-objects. It also has many更多还原