我国转租制度的困境与出路  

Dilemma and way out of subletting institution in China

作　　者：梁燚鑫 杨利雅[1] 

机构地区：[1]沈阳师范大学法学院,沈阳110034

出　　处：《沈阳工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第1期77-81,共5页Journal of Shenyang University of Technology(Social Sciences)

基　　金：辽宁省教育厅一般项目(W2015353)

摘　　要：转租是有别于租约让与和普通租赁的特殊租赁形式。在转租方面,世界各国立法大致可分为自由主义、限制主义和区别主义三种模式。我国《合同法》第224条关于转租的规定采限制主义,这虽然减轻了司法任务,促成了判决统一,但因不区分转租与租约转让且不分租赁之具体情形一概加以限制未免显得过于笼统,且该规定本身有违公平原则。在当前政治经济背景下,平衡当事人之利益显得尤为重要。借鉴自由主义的立法模式对现有制度予以修正,并对民事和商事租赁进行区别,对动产和不动产租赁采取不同规则具有重要意义。Subletting is a special mode of lease different from lease assignment and regular rental. The legislation concerning subletting around the world can be mainly divided into three modes, namely,liberalism,restrictionism and differentiationism. The regulations on subletting in Article 224 of Contract Law of China adopt restrictionism. Although it reduces the burden of judicature and contributes to the unification of judgment,it seemed to be too general for it does not differentiate subletting and lease assignment,and restricts all lease while does not differentiate the concrete circumstance of it. And the regulation itself violates the fair principle. Under the current political and economic background, to counterpoise the interests of concerning parties is extremely significant. It has important significance to amend the existing institutions by referencing the legislative mode of liberalism,to differentiate civil and commercial leases,and to adopt different rules of leases of movable property and real estate.

关 键 词：租赁 转租 自由主义 限制主义 区别主义 商事租赁 动产租赁 不动产租赁 

分 类 号：D913[政治法律—民商法学]