论文部分内容阅读
近年来,动产“动态质押+第三人监管”模式在实践中引发权利冲突,各地司法裁量不一。本文认为,通过质物流动,在盘活库存同时不断成立新质权而消灭旧质权,是符合动产质权的质物特定要件的;间接占有人质权银行凭藉直接占有人物流企业的他物控制与他主介绍,以较为经济的方式实现质物留置与质权公示,亦符合动产质权的质物占有要件。然而,实践中质权银行委托的物流企业以报表式监管放弃直接占有,使直接占有回归提供监管场地的出质企业或其委托仓储的第四方企业,构成实质上的占有改定,或质权银行委托的物流企业虽然直接占有,但作该质权银行以外的别主认可,因此引发权利冲突。对此,本文在分析动产质权构成要件的基础上,提出相关的识别内容及裁判规则。
In recent years, movable property “dynamic pledge + third-person supervision ” model triggered conflicts of rights in practice, with different judicial decisions. This paper argues that the elimination of the old right of hypothecation by keeping the stock pledges and stockpiling of inventory while keeping the inventories flowing is the specific requirement of the quality of the movable property pledge. The direct possession of the pledge of ownership by direct possession He introduced with him, in a more economical way to achieve mass retention and publicity of the pledge, also in line with the pledge of the pledge of the possession of the essentials of the material. However, in practice, the logistics enterprises commissioned by the pledge bank abandon the direct possession by report-type supervision, so that the pledgor enterprises or the fourth-party enterprises entrusted with warehousing directly returning to provide the regulatory venues constitute substantial occupancy reorganization or pledge Although the logistics enterprises entrusted by the banks directly occupy, they are recognized by other than the pledge bank, thus triggering a conflict of rights. In this regard, based on the analysis of the elements of the pledge of movable property, this article puts forward the relevant identification content and rules.