Study On The Antagonism Rules Of Special Chattel Registration

Article 24 of the property law stipulates the rules of registration confrontation in the property law of China.Different from the formalism mode and the intentionalism mode of the real right change,the twenty-fourth article of the real right law of China on the special chattel registration confrontation rules is a kind of mixed doctrine as an exception.First of all,Article24 of the property law generally introduces the rules of registration confrontation,but it does not make clear the effective elements of the change of the real right of special movable property;while the Supreme People’s Court promulgated the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of legal issues in the trial of sales contract disputes cases(hereinafter referred to as the judicial interpretation of sales contract)and the application of the people’s Republic of China The interpretation of several issues in the property law of the people’s Republic of China(1)(hereinafter referred to as the judicial interpretation of the property law(1))does not clearly stipulate the rules for the change of the real right of special movable property.Through various interpretation methods including literal interpretation and system interpretation,the author believes that Article 23 of the property law and Article 24 of the property law constitute a general rule for the change of the real right of special movable property,that is,the rule of "delivery comes into effect,registration against";secondly,in the change of the mortgage right of special movable property,Article 188 of the property law expressly stipulates the application of "contract" The mode of "intention comes into effect plus registration confrontation",that is,the general rule of excluding the change of real right of special movable property by exception,is applicable to the mortgage of special movable property;and finally,in the change of pledge of special movable property,article 212 of real right law only stipulates that "the pledge comes into effect when the pledgor delivers the pledged property" This leads to the academic debate on whether the registration confrontation rule is applicable to the change of pledge right of special movable property.By analyzing the court’s attitude towards similar cases in practice,and analyzing the relationship between the provisions of article 212 of the property law and Article 24 of the property law on the level of interpretation,finally,starting from the function of the pledge system,the author believes thatthe change of pledge right of special movable property is not subject to the rules of registration confrontation.At the same time,in terms of the legal effect of registration antagonism rules,by studying the registration antagonism systems and relevant theories of Japan,France and other countries,especially the theories of Japan which are of reference significance to China,the theory of the legal effect of registration antagonism developed in the academic circle of China is based on the theory that "the change of property right with incomplete effect plus the third party with good faith or not The comprehensive theory of"right recognition" is the best.The change of real right with incomplete effect means that the effect of real right is not always the same.If the alteration of the real right of a special chattel is not registered,the real right owner may suffer the adverse consequences of the loss of the right.The right of repudiation of the third party in good faith refers to the effect that the law gives to the third party in good faith to repudiate the change of real right which is lack of antagonistic effect.This theory well deals with the relationship between the parties and the third party in good faith.In theory,there is no applicable space for the system of bona fide acquisition in the problem of unauthorized disposal caused by multiple sales of special movable property.Specifically,if the theory of "incomplete real right change plus the right of repudiation of the third party in good faith" is adopted,the original obligee has no right to dispose,which leads to the possibility of confusion between the registration confrontation rule and the system of acquisition in good faith.However,the essence of the two systems is that they act on two systems with different functions in different situations,and they are different in the purpose of regulation,the scope of application,the connotation of goodwill and the nature of compensation.And the existence of Article 24 of the property law,through its own unique function,distinguishes the unauthorized disposition under this situation from the unauthorized disposition under the bona fide acquisition system,and there is no room for the application of the bona fide acquisition system.