Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author卢正敏
dc.contributor.author齐树洁
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-17T01:44:27Z
dc.date.available2016-05-17T01:44:27Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citation现代法学,2010,(1):150-160
dc.identifier.issn1001-2397
dc.identifier.otherXDFX201001016
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.xmu.edu.cn/handle/2288/99068
dc.description.abstract依据不同的强制拍卖性质学说,错误拍卖第三人财产的法律效力有所不同。从拍定人与第三人之间的利益权衡来看,“私法说“和“公法说“均有所失衡。强制拍卖的性质上应采用“公法说“,拍定人系原始取得拍卖物的所有权,这是维护公益、保障拍卖公信力之所需,但是,全面采用“公法说“并不符合我国国情。它有过分保护拍定人利益而牺牲第三人利益之虞。我国应当在坚持采用“公法说“的前提下,对“公法说“进行局部修正,以合理协调拍定人与第三人之间的利益关系。
dc.description.abstractThe legal effects of false mandatory auction of the third party's property differ under different doctrines.In term s of balance of the interests of bidder and the third party,neither public law doctrine nor private law doctrine seems entirely satisfactory The nature of mandatory auction should be determined under public law and the bidder be deemed to have acquired the ownership originally,which is considered necessary to protect public interests and preserve public credit of auction.However,overall adaptation of public law doctrine is by no means consistent with China's special situation,which may lead to overprotection of the bidder and sacrifice the interest of the third party.While maintaining public law doctrine,we should partially improve it so as to adequately balance the interests of the bidder and the third party.
dc.description.sponsorship国家社会科学基金项目“多元化纠纷解决机制与和谐社会的构建”(07BFX069)
dc.language.isozh_CN
dc.subject强制拍卖
dc.subject公信力
dc.subject利益权衡
dc.subject执行异议
dc.subject异议之诉
dc.subjectmandatory auction
dc.subjectpublic credit
dc.subjectbalance of benefits
dc.subjectexecution objection
dc.subjectobjection action
dc.title论错误拍卖第三人财产的法律效力——兼评《民事诉讼法》第204条之相关规定
dc.title.alternativeLegal Effect of False Mandatory Auction of Third Party's Property——Concurrently on Article 204 of the Civil Procedural Act
dc.typeArticle


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record