The Study Of Home Side Circulation Dispute

This paper through a typical case-Zheng Gen vs. Shi Changfu homestead dispute with separate transfer of homestead use right analyzes the problems that arise in the case. Meanwhile the paper analyzes different opinions in the first instance and second instance, as well as different views from scholars; and further compares the rules of real right change in general civil law and contract law era with that after the Real Right Law is enacted, by which reveals the lag of existing laws with provisions on China's current homestead use right.This paper's main body is divided into six parts:the first and second part is introduction to the case profile and the dispute; the third part is a detailed analysis of the controversy in the case:first explores the legitimacy of Shi Changfu's house; followed by analysis of whether the siblings Shi Changzhen and Shi Changfu share the use right of the 13.5 square meter-homestead in dispute and then analyses the validity of the contract signed with Zheng Gen and the effects the contract results in.At the end of the third part, the paper tries to break out "house-land integrity" principle to make a reasonable explanation of the case. The fourth part from the basic principles of civil law, namely, the theory of real right change re-thinks the case:re-evaluates Shi Changzhen's act of allowing her younger brother Shi Changfu to build the house, stating that the act is in fact a form of real right transfer. In this context, with Shi Changfu's house-building act as the starting point, the paper further considers the dispute arising from the case.The last part of the paper will mainly set out the research conclusions of the case. As Real Right Law has been enacted for nearly three years, we should first of all regard homestead use right as a usufructuary right before we discuss the transfer of homestead use right; second, because of Real Right Law in place, we should discuss the transfer of homestead use right under the rules of real right change established by the Real Right Law, namely, the distinction principle between causal act and result act of real right transfer. Through the case, we find that it is necessary for Chinese law to make more detailed provisions on homestead use right to fill the existing gaps in order to avoid similar disputes continuing to arise.