| The real estate industry has now become one of the important industries to promote economic development in my country.Some civil entities conduct speculative house purchases to obtain high profits.The state has promulgated a policy of restricting purchases and loans to curb the behavior of maliciously driving up house prices,and has also implemented a policy-based security housing policy to solve the housing problems of families in need.In order to regulate the government’s policy of restricting purchases and loans,and enjoying preferential policies for house purchases,a large number of incidents of borrowing name to buy a house have occurred.Borrowing name to buy a house is a high-risk behavior.In the process of performance,such litigation disputes are also increasing due to behaviors such as failure of the celebrity to perform the contract or disposing of the property under the name without authorization.Based on the 14611 cases of borrowing name to buy a house,it can be found that the court has two opposite opinions on the validity of the contract of borrowing name to buy a house.On the issue of ownership of property rights.There are referee opinions that judge the ownership of the person showing the name,the ownership of borrowed people,and the ownership of third parties.On the issue of enforcement,the courts have adjudication views that support and do not support borrowers’ exclusion of enforcement.Thus,there are three problems that borrowing name to buy a house is designed to solve: first,to determine the validity of the contract for borrowing name to buy a house;second,to determine the ownership of the house involved in the purchase of a house in the name of the borrower;The third is whether or not borrower can exclude the enforcement of borrowed houses.Except for the purchase of policy-guaranteed housing,the purchase of a house by name does not have a cause of invalidity,and the contract shall be deemed valid according to law;the name-borrower enjoys the ownership of the house in the name-borrowing based on a valid contract and registration,and the sale of the house to a third party is entitled to disposition;Because the creditor’s right of the borrower to the house under the name of the borrower does not have the priority effect on the creditor’s right of the applicant for execution,the court cannot exclude the compulsory execution of the house under the name of the borrower.The court should clarify the basis of judgment,unify the judicial judgment of the case of borrowing name to buy a house,and maintain the impartiality and authority of the judiciary.The civil subjects should act legally,avoid taking the initiative to fall into risk,and jointly build a good market transaction order. |
