| Project/Area Number |
16K03418
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Civil law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Waseda University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
OBA Hiroyuki 早稲田大学, 法学学術院, 教授 (10386534)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2016-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2018)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥4,420,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,400,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,020,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥1,040,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥240,000)
Fiscal Year 2017: ¥1,950,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥450,000)
Fiscal Year 2016: ¥1,430,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥330,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 物権変動 / 物権行為 / ius ad rem / 物権債権峻別論 / 不動産公示制度 / 民法 / ドイツ法 / 法制史 / 物権変動論 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
On the premise of analysis from the historical point of view of the theory of property deed and ius ad rem theory, I have discussed the theoretical relationship between both concepts. Specifically, analysis was conducted after establishing three analysis bases: intention and format, property right and claim, and right to claim for performance and right to claim for damages.
The results are as follows. As the interpretation of Japanese law, it is to be recognized as the judgment element in recognizing the believing superstition of third parties in double transfer, in recognition of the concept of the property deed with the cause. And about ius ad rem, it is defined as the right to allow a person who has the right not to have the absolute effect in the first place to charge the third party directly, assuming the third party's malice. The ius ad rem concept and the property deed concept have commonality when considered in terms of the protection of the first buyer in double transfer.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
日本法における背信的悪意者排除論について新たな知見を提供することができるとともに、より精緻な解釈論を展開することが可能となった。また、これまでの判例と通説に対する批判として、物権行為の無因性を認めることなく物権行為概念を肯定することの必要性を論証することができた。
そして、これまでかならずしも明確ではなかったius ad rem概念について、歴史的な分析結果に基づいて明確に定義づけることによって、物権と債権の関係性やその異同について新たな視点を提示することができた。これにより、日本の民法典の体系に関する議論にも影響を与えることが可能となった。
|
