Critical consideration of the theory of distinction between real rights and claims -historical background, significance under current law and interpretation and legislative theory-

2023 Fiscal Year Final Research Report

• Project/Area Number: 19K01379
• Research Category: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• Allocation Type: Multi-year Fund
• Section: 一般
• Review Section: Basic Section 05060:Civil law-related
• Research Institution: Waseda University
• Principal Investigator: OBA Hiroyuki 早稲田大学, 法学学術院, 教授 (10386534)
• Project Period (FY): 2019-04-01 – 2024-03-31
• Keywords: 物権債権峻別論 / 物権法 / 物権法定主義 / 制限物権 / 物権種類論 / 物権効力論 / 物権変動論 / ドイツ法

Outline of Final Research Achievements

Ownership right, which is a typical example of real rights, is said to have the characteristics of directness, absoluteness, and exclusivity, but not all of these are recognized in all ownership rights, and the same is true for real rights other than ownership right. Furthermore, the characteristics of monetary claims, which are a typical example of claims, are not always limited to indirectness, relativity, and non-exclusivity.

In other words, the criterion for distinguishing between real rights and claims is thought to be based on whether the object is a thing or a person. Therefore, it is incorrect to interpret that because it has absolute effect, it is a real right, and because it has only relative effect, it is a claim. This kind of understanding causes confusion even when maintaining the distinction between real rights and claims.

Free Research Field

民法

Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements

たしかに、典型的な物権は絶対効を有し、典型的な債権は相対効しか有しない。また、この限りにおいて、物権法定主義は重要な意義をもつ。そして、これらの原則としての思考様式は今後も意義をもつだろう。しかし、物権と絶対効、債権と相対効は、必ず結びつくという関係性にあるわけではない。
物を対象とする権利が物権であり、人の行為を対象とする権利が債権である。物権と債権の区別についてはこの基準にのみ従うこととした上で、日本の民法典の体系を再構成することが必要である。本研究における分析は、今後の民法における権利論や体系論に有益な示唆を与えることとなろう。