On Bona Fide Possession-discuss To Taiwan Scholars’ Theory

China’s "Property Law" Section241-245has makes provision for the question ofpossession. It will be divided into titular possession unauthorized possession bylegislators. Unauthorized possession is subdivided into bona fide possession anddishonest possession. Just in terms of the above classification system is too simple forpossession and Chinese scholars also raised their own programs before the draft, butits final legislative provisions can be seen in the provisions of the chapter is to learnfrom the possession of the legislation of Taiwan region "civil law". There are manydifferences between Chinese scholars on how to clearly define definition of bona fidepossession. Because there is a logic confliction in Taiwan scholars’ possessionclassification. In this paper, the following aspects of this issue are discussed.Provide an overview of the classification of national legislation to possess in thefirst chapter. This chapter examines the history of possession and understanding thecomplexity of the classification possession necessity through comparative study. Onthe complexity of the classification, not only embodies the national legislatures ofRoman or Germanic law to follow the process, but also reflects the differences in theintegration of their ideas. French law strictly distinguishes between the possession andhold and as his self-possession and possession for the main major categories. German law adopts the theory of objective possession so that the holders obtain the status ofthe person in possession of the suit. Japanese law pursues a pragmatic attitude andproposes a classification of have the right source to occupy and have no right sourceto occupy in legislation. In order to protect ownership, the former Soviet Union’s lawfrom the socialist system as legitimate possession and proposes the classification ofillegal possession as the starting point. Taiwan region "civil law" and China’s"Property Law" absorb all the former experience. About the necessity of classification,it is necessary to classify the current messy doctrine and sum up to play the effect ofsettling disputes, the law should be guidelines, norms and others to make the currentmess clearly and resolve legal disputes pending from numerous toward reunification.In the second, it discusses the Taiwan legislative and the doctrine of defects andflaws. This chapter begins with citing a number of scholars’ doctrine of possession inbona fide possession, Embodied in the mainland scholars discuss Taiwan scholar’stheory have different understanding which has fully draw, recognized theoreticalsystem is applicable to the entire continent-wide and has a range of changes to expandthe applicable scope, to solve more legal problems. Also has the opposition, embarksfrom the logical relationship to analysis. After list each view, summarizes the focus ofdebate. The term from the bona fide possession produced in actio Publiciana, Analysisof Taiwan’s civil law scholars’ unauthorized possession system under the doctrine ofbona fide possession loose definition of ductility, and put forward the root cause of thedifferences in the improper definition of "good faith", it is confusion and conflict.In the third, perfect the system of possession in our country legislation. Forresolving the conflict of improper classification in this chapter, it discusses the"intentional tort liability law, negligence theory" to solve the infringement problemsand a set of logical classification method is put forward in possession of tort liabilityas the starting point. Accomplish Japan’s and the former Soviet Union’s what arepragmatic as a basis for classification. On have the right to possess, it will define theboundary of bona fide possession and dishonest possession so that to maintain thetransaction security, safeguard the rights and interests of owners and to be consistencyin legislation through analyzing the laws bodies of the behavior of possession transferring and strictly distinguish between the right to possess and the behavior ofthe assignee. On have no right to possession, it will demonstrate the transform fromhave no right to possession to have the right to possession through discussing theimpact of defects such as secrecy, violence and not continue means ownership. Theclassification in two directions avoids the definition of the logic crossing whichcaused by error definition.In the fourth, demonstrate the feasibility of the reconstruction system. Thischapter puts the cases from the second chapter into the classification from the third todemonstrate the feasibility of this kind of classification to solve the existing problems.Analyzing the behavior of legal consequences such as income attribution, expenses ofbelonging and damages of belonging from the perspective of scope, theory andpractice. Form a complete classification system eventually.