Research On The Legal Effect Of Loaning-house Agreement

The rapid development of the real estate industry makes the housing not only for people to live but also for investment to earn income.In recent years,in order to maintain the steady development of the real estate market,the state has continuously achieved the purpose of stabilizing housing prices and housing supply through macro-control measures.At the same time,through the provision of policy-supported housing,to help people live in housing.However,with the soaring value of houses,the existence of some speculators pursuing real estate profits,and the fact that most people are not willing to disclose their property to the public for the purpose of avoiding the purchase restriction policy,there are a lot of situations in the market where houses are purchased in the name of others,that is to say,buying houses in the name of others.From the aspect of legal elements,borrowing the name to buy a house itself is a civil act involving many subjects and complicated legal relations.And with the increase of the house value,the disputes prominent out are also increasing,mainly in the form of housing ownership disputes to appeal to the law.However,due to the lagging nature of the law itself and the rapid increase of this new form of disputes in a short period of time,there is no clear provision for such disputes in the current law,which leads to the increasingly prominent difficulties and disputes in the judgment of such disputes in judicial practice.And through the analysis of the case,it can be seen that although the dispute between the parties appears to be a dispute over the ownership of the house on the surface,the root cause of the dispute is the decision of whether to support the effectiveness of the agreement between the parties.The purpose of this paper is to analyzes the judicial practice in the borrow the major form of housing disputes,to borrow a study and legal nature of the housing agreement and validity analysis,and on this basis on judicial practice outstanding borrow to buy a house in the house ownership problems were discussed,for the problems in the present judicial practice to provide some valuable reference.This paper is divided into five parts.The first part is the introduction,which mainly introduces the source of the topic,research status,theoretical and practical significance and the innovative points of the paper.The second part is the case analysis and the summary of the controversial points ofthe case.Through the retrieval,this paper lists the increasing trend of the number of cases in judicial practice in recent years,which provides the case source support for the thesis.This paper enumerates five typical cases for analysis and comparative study,and finds that the lack of law leads to the different recognition,evaluation and judgment reasons of the agreement of borrowing name to buy a house in the judicial judgment.This paper analyzes the different judicial positions of the courts in the disputes of borrowing names for different reasons and properties of houses,sorts out the basic situation of the disputes of borrowing names for buying houses in current judicial practice,and lays a foundation for the further discussion of related issues in the following paper.The third part is the basic stipulation of the agreement to buy a house by name,namely the basic content of the agreement to buy a house by name.This paper mainly sorts out the basic issues such as the concept and nature of the loan agreement,expounds the concept and behavioral characteristics of loan agreement,and the similarities and differences between the loan agreement and the relevant behavioral content,so that it is more reasonable to define the loan agreement as a mixed contract.The fourth part is the analysis of the legal effect of the loan agreement,which is the focus of this paper.This paper thinks that although the dispute is reflected in the ownership of housing ownership,the core of the problem still lies in the judicial practice on the nature and effectiveness of the agreement itself and the judgment standards.Thus,the effectiveness of the third part is mainly to borrow to buy a house agreement of different theoretical perspectives on the research and analysis,and analysis the theoretical basis of effectiveness from borrow to buy a house agreement in the name of the property rights perspective,based on a desirable effect analysis,borrow to buy a house agreement as a whole and partial effect relationship analysis,and so on has carried on the effectiveness of the theory analysis and demonstration,at the same time through the effective judgment in the judicial practice on the basis of the type of analysis and discussion,and proposed in this paper,decided to borrow under different types of housing agreement.The fifth part is the ownership of housing ownership.This part of the content is in the fourth part,in borrow to buy a house on the basis of the agreement under the premise of effective,to borrow the name registration act of real right law and the facts and analysis,the real right in further to borrow name registration result in fact real right and law is protected under the condition of phase separation of the ownership of themeans and ways are discussed in this paper,namely the ownership disputes appear between the celebrity and borrow celebrity or involve the third person,in different circumstances ownership should be recognized in accordance with what kind of ways to protect and to be more fair and reasonable is analyzed and discussed.