【作者】 梁琳琳；

【导师】 徐卫东；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 本文是一篇对破产财产进行研究的论文。全文在结构上由前言及正文的三个部分组成。前言介绍了界定和清偿破产财产在市场经济及司法实践中的重要性。市场经济是法制经济，市场主体要按法律的规定进行公平竞争，调节和规范市场经济优胜劣汰现象的破产法在市场经济法律体系中起着举足轻重的作用。如何界定破产财产，不仅关系到破产企业利益，而且也是债权人通过破产程序能得到多少财产的前提，也是破产企业是否得到公平清算的重要环节。　 第一部分对破产财产进行了概述。首先，介绍了破产财产的理论界定。“破产财产”是破产法上的一个核心范畴，主要是英美法系国家使用的概念，而大陆法系国家如德国、日本等多称之为“破产财团”。　破产财团于理论上在三种意义上使用，即法定财团、现有财团和分配财团。在探讨“破产财产”和“破产财团”概念的异同时，形成了“等同说”、“部分差异说”和“完全差异说”的观点分歧。我国破产法使用的是“破产财产”的概念，是指破产宣告后能够依破产程序分配于破产债权人的破产人的所有财产。其次，论述了破产财产的性质。目前学理上划分破产财产的性质主要有权利客体说和权利主体说。权利客体说认为破产财产是权利客体，而其所有人为破产人。权利主体说认为破产财产本身即构成权利主体，可享有权利其作为主体属于财团法人的性质，具有民事主体资格。权利主体说形 54<WP=59>成若干分支学派，主要有类似财团法人说、特别财团说、法人说、默视构成法人说、临时法人说、无法人人格财团说。还有观点认为，破产财产的所有权实际上应归债权人或破产管理人即清算组所有。因为我国破产法仅适用于法人企业，而不适用于自然人，故明确破产财产的性质的必要性并不十分强烈。第三，论述了破产财产的特征。破产财产必须是破产人可以独立支配的财产；破产财产必须是能够依照破产程序进行分配的财产，其具有财产权性质；破产财产期间范围和种类范围具有法定性。破产财产必须是在破产宣告时，为破产人所有或经营管理的财产，或破产人在破产宣告后，破产程序终结前所取得的财产，或破产人将来行使的财产请求权；破产财产必须是依法能够强制执行的财产。　第二部分介绍了破产财产的范围。首先，学界将破产财产的构成范围的时间标准的立法原则分为固定主义与膨胀主义。固定主义以破产宣告时债务人所有的财产包括将来行使的财产请求权为破产财产。膨胀主义是指破产财产不仅包括破产人被宣告破产时所有的财产，而且包括其在破产程序宣告后至破产程序终结前所新取得的财产。就固定主义与膨胀主义而言，各有其理论缺陷和实践弊病。固定主义在理论上较为合理，膨胀主义则更为实用。我国现行《破产法》在破产财产范围上采用的是膨胀主义立法原则。采用膨胀主义可扬长避短，并能适应将来破产制度扩大适用到自然人企业乃至自然人的发展趋势，为我国在现阶段情况下确立正确的立法原则。其次，破产 55<WP=60>财产的构成范围上的空间标准在立法上分为属地主义和普及主义。属地主义的核心在于破产程序的多元性和破产宣告效力的地域性。普及主义的核心在于破产程序的统一性和破产宣告效力的扩张性。属地主义和普及主义各具利弊，随着国际破产法学理论研究的深入，以及体系的形成和完善，“普及主义必须成为我们的目标。”随着改革开放的深入，建议我国在破产域外效力上，可采取适度的破产普及主义。破产财产的种类包括法定破产财产、现有破产财产和分配破产财产。我国破产财产的法定构成为债务人在破产宣告时所有的或者经营管理的全部财产、债务人在破产宣告后至破产程序终结前取得的财产、应当由债务人行使得其他财产权利。　 第三部分对司法实践中界定破产财产的难点问题进行了研究。首先，提出破产案件受理前经法院裁定以物抵债但尚未办理产权过户手续的财产应否作为破产财产问题。《最高人民法院〈关于审理企业破产案件若干问题的规定〉》第６８ 条规定，“债务人的财产被采取民事诉讼执行措施的，在受理破产案件后尚未执行的或者未执行完毕的剩余部分，在该企业被宣告破产后列入破产财产。因错误执行应当执行回转的财产，在执行回转后列入破产财产。”“执行完毕”应当以法院依法针对被执行财产的执行裁定作出为标准，被执行财产权利的转移只是法院作出的执行裁定的法律后果，不能作为衡量执行是否完毕的标准。坚持以法院作出执行裁定作为是否“执行完毕”的标准，不仅可以维护法院裁判的既判力，而且降低了债务人以申请破 56<WP=61>产抗拒法院强制执行的机率，对解决法院执行难有重要意义。因此，破产案件受理前经法院裁定以物抵债但尚未办理产权过户手续的财产不应作为破产财产。其次，介绍了几种特殊抵押合同效力的确认问题。关于国有企业的设备及建筑物设定抵押的效力问题。审判实践中经常涉及的问题是，如果企业在进行抵押时没有经过政府主管部门批准，该抵押是否有效。如果抵押物已经进行登记，且没有其他导致合更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper is mainly on the property of the bankrupt. Thispaper consists of the preface and the three parts of the body. Thepreface focuses on the introduction of the importance of thedefinition and discharge of the property of the bankrupt in themarket economy and legal practice. Market economy is legaleconomy and the main bodies of the market should compete witheach other fairly, thus the bankrupt law adjusting and whichadjusts and regulates the phenomenon of the survival of the fittestplays an important role in the legal system of the market economy.The way of defining the property of the bankrupt not only hassomething to do with the benefit of the bankrupt enterprise butalso serves as the premise of the amount of property the creditorcan get through legal process and it is also an important tache indetermining whether the bankrupt enterprise can get a fairliquidation. The first part is the general statement of the property of thebankrupt. What comes first is the theoretical definition of theproperty of the bankrupt. “The property of the bankrupt”is a corecategory of the bankrupt law which is widely used in common lawcountries while countries of the continental law system such asGermany and Japan call it “bankrupt consortium”. Theoretically,the term “bankrupt consortium” is used in three perspectivesincluding legal consortium, present consortium and distributionconsortium. In the discussion of the same and different points ofthe “property of the bankrupt”and the “bankrupt consortium”,different viewpoints such as “equivalence theory”, “partialdifference theory”and “total difference theory”surge up. Thebankrupt law uses the concept of the “the property of thebankrupt” which refers to all the property of the bankruptdistributed to the bankrupted creditor according to the bankruptprocedure after the announcement of the bankruptcy. Second, the 59<WP=64>nature of the property of the bankrupt is discussed. In thedetermination of the nature of the property of the bankrupt, thepresent theory includes the theory of the object of right and thetheory of the subject of right. The theory of the object of rightholds that the property of the bankrupt is the object of right whichbelongs to the bankrupt while the theory of the subject of rightasserts that the property of the bankrupt inn itself is the subject ofright which is the subject like the artificial person of theconsortium, possessing the qualification of the subject of civil law.The theory of the subject of right develops into manysub-branches which mainly consists of the theory of quasiartificial person of the consortium, the special consortium theory,the artificial person theory, the acquiescent artificial person theory,the temporary artificial person theory and the theory ofconsortium without personality of the artificial person. Anothertheory holds that the ownership of the property of bankruptbelongs to the creditor or the trustee in bankruptcy (or theliquidators). Because the bankrupt law of our country only appliesto enterprise with the qualification of artificial person but not tonatural person, there is no urgent need to clarify the nature of theproperty of the bankrupt. Third, the feature of the property of thebankrupt is discussed. The property of the bankrupt must be theproperty which the bankrupt can dispose of independently; theproperty of bankrupt must be the property which can bedistributed according to the bankrupt procedure and it must bringswith it the nature of property right; the range of the course andtype of the property of the bankrupt has statutory nature; theproperty of bankrupt should be the property possessed or managedby the bankrupt at the time of the announcement of bankruptcy, orthe property newly attained by the bankrupt after theannouncement of the bankruptcy and before the termination of thebankrupt procedure, or the right of petition enjoyed by thebankrupt in f更多还原