论不可量物侵害的私法救济——以容忍义务的界定为视角

Study on the private relief of the immission--from delimiting toleration obligation

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

吴琼

导师:

张力

导师单位:

民商法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

不可量物侵害;不可量物;容忍义务;利益衡量;类型

摘要:

罗马法学家从主张以绝对所有权对抗所有外来侵入到主张基于社会共处的一般性需要排除对轻微不可量物侵害提起诉讼主张的转变,相邻不动产权利人间基于共处需要对于轻微不可量物侵害的容忍义务已见雏形。经过德国判例与学说的努力,《德国民法典》在吸收“相邻共同体关系理论”和“牺牲补偿请求权理论”各自精要的基础上,形成第906条的不可量物侵害制度。该条规定与德国《联邦无形侵害防治法》第14条共同构成德国相邻不可量物侵害制度体系,同时,相邻不动产权利人间层次递进的容忍义务体系亦由此形成。法国判例与学说认为,超过邻人基于相邻关系通常忍受限度的不可量物侵害被认为是“异常的”、“过度的”近邻妨害。综上可知,容忍义务的界定是不可量物侵害私法救济的核心所在。反观我国对不可量物侵害制度的立法规定和司法适用现状,《物权法》第90条对不可量物侵害的规定过于粗陋,尤其其中以“国家规定”作为不可量物侵害成立与否的标准过于单一、僵化。在《侵权责任法》中将不可量物侵害制度与环境侵权制度视为一体,从而抑制了不可量物侵害制度衡平调整相邻不动产权利人利益冲突功能的发挥。无论是物权救济模式还是侵权救济模式,容忍义务界定规则作为不可量物侵害制度功能发挥的核心,我国立法均未予明确规定,从而导致司法适用的困境。不可量物侵害制度作为相邻关系制度的中心内容,其旨在协调相邻双方的利益冲突,促进邻里关系和谐,进而实现物的最大化利用。鉴于容忍义务在调整相邻双方利益冲突方面发挥着举足轻重的作用,容忍义务限度的界定便是关键。在综合各国有关容忍义务限度立法例的基础上,归纳容忍义务界定的考量因素,并结合分析不可量物侵害中不同类型主体间关系的特质,形成一个较为逻辑自洽的容忍义务界定参酌因素体系,以期在不可量物侵害案件中为法官的自由裁量提供一个可供参考的操作思路。

参考文献:

40

学科:

民商法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

吴琼. 论不可量物侵害的私法救济——以容忍义务的界定为视角[D]. 西南政法大学,2015.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论不可量物侵害的私法救济——以容忍义务的界定为视角
  • dc.title
  • Study on the private relief of the immission--from delimiting toleration obligation
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20120301050541
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 吴琼
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2015
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 张力
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 不可量物侵害;不可量物;容忍义务;利益衡量;类型
  • dc.subject
  • the immission;imponderable;tolerance obligation;interest in equality;classification
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 罗马法学家从主张以绝对所有权对抗所有外来侵入到主张基于社会共处的一般性需要排除对轻微不可量物侵害提起诉讼主张的转变,相邻不动产权利人间基于共处需要对于轻微不可量物侵害的容忍义务已见雏形。经过德国判例与学说的努力,《德国民法典》在吸收“相邻共同体关系理论”和“牺牲补偿请求权理论”各自精要的基础上,形成第906条的不可量物侵害制度。该条规定与德国《联邦无形侵害防治法》第14条共同构成德国相邻不可量物侵害制度体系,同时,相邻不动产权利人间层次递进的容忍义务体系亦由此形成。法国判例与学说认为,超过邻人基于相邻关系通常忍受限度的不可量物侵害被认为是“异常的”、“过度的”近邻妨害。综上可知,容忍义务的界定是不可量物侵害私法救济的核心所在。反观我国对不可量物侵害制度的立法规定和司法适用现状,《物权法》第90条对不可量物侵害的规定过于粗陋,尤其其中以“国家规定”作为不可量物侵害成立与否的标准过于单一、僵化。在《侵权责任法》中将不可量物侵害制度与环境侵权制度视为一体,从而抑制了不可量物侵害制度衡平调整相邻不动产权利人利益冲突功能的发挥。无论是物权救济模式还是侵权救济模式,容忍义务界定规则作为不可量物侵害制度功能发挥的核心,我国立法均未予明确规定,从而导致司法适用的困境。不可量物侵害制度作为相邻关系制度的中心内容,其旨在协调相邻双方的利益冲突,促进邻里关系和谐,进而实现物的最大化利用。鉴于容忍义务在调整相邻双方利益冲突方面发挥着举足轻重的作用,容忍义务限度的界定便是关键。在综合各国有关容忍义务限度立法例的基础上,归纳容忍义务界定的考量因素,并结合分析不可量物侵害中不同类型主体间关系的特质,形成一个较为逻辑自洽的容忍义务界定参酌因素体系,以期在不可量物侵害案件中为法官的自由裁量提供一个可供参考的操作思路。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • A shift occurring in Roman jurists, is that change from advocate relying on absolute ownership against all external invasion to advocate excluding lawsuit claim on minor immission based on general need to social coexistence,which makes the obligation of tolerating minor immission between the adjacent holders of real estate become visible.Through joint efforts of German`s legal cases and theories,”the German civil code ” formulate the article 906 of immission system on basis of absorbing the quintessence which combing”the theory about adjacent community relations ”with” the theory about right to claim compensation for compromise. The 906 article and German ”the federal law of the intangible violation” article 14 commonly constitute the Germans’ immission system,which is known for the hierarchical tolerance obligation system on the adjacent holders of real estate. In addition, the legal cases and theories of France think that the abnormal or excessive violation beyond the usual tolerance of neighbor based on neighboring relationship.To sum up, the core of the immission system is delimiting the scope of tolerance obligation.Meanwhile,through researching legislative and judicial situation on immission system in our country, we know that the article 90 of the property law stipulating immission system appear crude,especially,regarding”state-specified standard” as the sole requirement deciding whether or not the immission come into existence,which is excessively rigid and single. In the tort law,regarding the immission system and environmental tort as a whole consequently restrain the immission function adjusting conflict of interest between adjacent holder of the real estate. Either property right relief pattern or tort relief pattern, the rules about delimiting the scope of tolerance obligation always be the prerequisite for the immission system functioning well.As the core content of the neighboring relations system,the immission system aims at promoting the harmonious neighborhood relations and realizing the utility maximization of content through coordinating the conflict of interest between the holder of real estate. In view of the important role of the immission system in coordinating the conflict of interest,delimiting the scope of tolerance obligation is the key. Based on integrating national legislation in immission system,sum up the relevant consideration about delimiting the scope of tolerance obligation, in addition,analysis and research characteristics of relationship between different types of subjects in the immission,in the end, formulating a logical judgment system about the scope of the tolerance obligation in the immission,expecting provide reference operation to train of thought for the judge in immission cases.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-19
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2015-05-24
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 40
  • dc.relation.relatedpublications
  • 目 录引言································ 1一、不可量物侵害私法救济制度的比较法考察·············· 2(一)罗马法上的不可量物侵害·················· 2(二)德国法上不可量物侵害制度体系··············· 3(三)法国的近邻妨害制度···················· 6(四)总结··························· 8二、 我国不可量物侵害救济制度的立法规定及其司法适用困境······ 9(一) 我国不可量物侵害救济相关立法规定············ 9(二)现行不可量物侵害立法规定下的司法适用困境········ 11三、 不可量物侵害认定之前提——容忍义务的界定··········· 14(一)容忍义务内涵之厘清··················· 14(二)容忍义务存在的法技术和法价值基础············ 15(三) 容忍义务与禁止权利滥用规则的区分············ 17(四)容忍义务限度界定···················· 18四、 我国不可量物侵害致损中不同类型主体间容忍义务之界定参酌因素·· 25(一) 主体类型化研究的理论基础和现实依据············ 25(二)私益主体间容忍义务界定参酌因素············· 29(三) 公益主体与私益主体对抗下容忍义务界定参酌因素······ 35五、总结····························· 36参考文献····························· 38致谢······························· 41
回到顶部