所有权保留的制度结构与解释  

The Interpretation and Structure of Reservation of Ownership

作　　者：邹海林[1] ZOU Hailin

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院法学研究所

出　　处：《法治研究》2022年第6期35-56,共22页Research on Rule of Law

摘　　要：《民法典》第641条规定了所有权保留。如何解释所有权保留,理论上有所有权构成说和担保权形成说之区分。因个别交易规则的变化,理论和司法实务基于担保功能主义的学说,将所有权保留解释为“功能化”的担保物权,并相应“准用”民法典第二编第四分编规定的动产抵押权之规则。担保功能主义的主张促成了《民法典》第388条扩张“具有担保功能的合同”的制度改革,但却没有改变《民法典》第641条规定的所有权保留的制度结构:以所有权构成说配置所有权保留情形下的权利义务关系,以出卖人回复标的物占有的取回权来保护出卖人对标的物的所有权,以买受人的“回赎权”和出卖人的“再出售权”来平衡当事人双方在买卖合同项下的清算利益。以担保功能主义将所有权保留解释为“功能化”的担保物权,规范文本上缺乏相应的制度基础,理论上不能自圆其说,与《民法典》上的物权法定主义、区分原则、物权变动的公示原则以及基于“物债二分”的法典结构形成的动产担保物权的规则体系存在难以协调的冲突。回归所有权构成说解释《民法典》第641条,当为我国民法解释学的妥当路径。Article 641 of the Civil Code provides for retention of title.How to interpret the retention of title,theoretically there is a distinction between the composition of ownership and the formation of a security interest.Because of the change of individual transaction rules,theory and judicial practice are based on the theory of security functionalism,which interprets the retention of title as a"functional"security interest and correspondingly applies the rules of movable mortgage as stipulated in Part IV under Book II of the Civil Code.The idea of security functionalism has led to the reform of the system of expanding"contracts with security functions"in article 388 of the Civil Code,but it has not changed the institutional structure of retention of title under article 641 of the Civil Code:the right-toobligation relationship in the case of the allocation of title reservation is under the composition of ownership,and to protect the seller's ownership of the subject matter by the seller's right to recover in response to the seller's possession on the subject matter,and to balance the liquidation interests of both parties under the contract for sale by the buyer's"right of redemption"and the seller's"right to resell".The wording,which interprets the retention of title as"functional"security interest by security functionalism,lacks the corresponding institutional basis in the normative text,and theoretically cannot be self-explanatory,and there exist some difficult conflicts with the Numerus Clasusus,the rule of distinction,the rule of publicity for changes in real rights,as well as the rule systems for security interest on movables formed under the code structure based on"distinction of real rights and obligations".The return of the composition of ownership will be the proper path of interpreting article 641 of the Civil Code.

关 键 词：所有权保留 出卖人 登记对抗主义 取回权 担保物权 

分 类 号：D923.2[政治法律—民商法学]