理论上和实践中对《物权法》第28条规定的可致物权变动的法律文书之范围远未形成一致的观点,此种情况影响了法律的统一适用以及《物权法》所追求的立法目标的实现。应当从《物权法》所追求的政策目标以及赋予法律文书以形成力的理论依据之角度理解该问题,同时,也必须从以与既判力相联系的角度理解此种法律文书的形式范围。当然,根本地应当以法律文书的内容,而非诉讼的类型,并以与法律行为相衔接的角度,理解致物权变动的法律文书的范围。 In theory and in practice, the scope of the legal instrument of change of real right stipulated in Article 28 of the Real Right Law is far from forming a consistent view, which affects the uniform application of law and the legislative goal pursued by the Property Law achieve. The issue should be understood from the policy objectives pursued by the Property Law and the theoretical basis for giving legal instruments to form forces. At the same time, it is necessary to understand the scope of such forms of legal instruments from the angle of res judicata. Of course, the scope of the legal instrument for the change of tenure should fundamentally be understood in terms of the contents of legal documents, not the type of litigation, and in connection with legal acts.