指示交付中对第三人返还请求权研究——兼评《物权法》第26条  

Research on the claim of returning third party in the delivery of instruction

作　　者：王清清[1] WANG Qing-qing(School of Law, Huaqiao University, Quanzhou 362021, China)

机构地区：[1]华侨大学法学院,福建泉州362021

出　　处：《河北工程大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第2期73-76,共4页Journal of Hebei University of Engineering(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：2013年度教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目(编号:13YJA820021)

摘　　要：尽管《物权法》第26条对指示交付作出了规定,但该规定不甚明了。实务界与学界均对如何适用该条众说纷纭,关键点在于"转让请求第三人返还原物的权利"的性质如何确定,以及是否需要"让与通知"作为指示交付的生效要件。交易实践中,返还请求权存在物权请求权、债权请求权以及两种请求权竞合三种情况,均应以让与通知作为生效要件。Although the Article26of the Property Law is required for indication delivery,the rules are unclear,which has triggered a heated discussion regarding to the application of this provision both in practice and inacademic field.Their key debate is how to confirm the nature of the right to“the transfer of requesting the thirdparty to return the original item”,and whether it is necessary of the directed delivery to take the“notice ofassignment”into force.In the practice of transaction,there are three forms of claim for return:the right of realclaim,the right of obligatory claim and the concurrence.All these forms of claim should take the notice ofassignment into force.

关 键 词：指示交付 物权请求权 债权请求权 让与通知 

分 类 号：D623.2[政治法律—政治学]