法经济学视阈下我国《民法典》上“处分行为”及物权变动模式之再审视

A Review of the “Act of Disposition” and the Mode of Real-Right Transfer in the Chinese Civil Code from the Perspective of Law and Economics

摘要: 物权变动的规范模式，一直是比较法上的热门话题，也是立法与司法上的难点问题。本文旨在从《民法典》中的“处分”概念出发，对我国司法案例进行实然分析，探究处分行为的具体内涵，研究不同物权变动模式之优劣。“处分”一词在《民法典》中并不鲜见，但立法上并没有“处分行为”的精确定义。通说认为处分行为应当是指直接导致物权变动的法律行为。然而，相关司法裁判分析表明，各级法院在《民法典》实施之后仍然遵循债权形式主义，民法学界呼声较高的物权行为理论并未体现于司法实践之中。从比较法上观察，处分行为无论在哪一种物权变动模式下都是一种客观存在，但物权行为理论只在少数国家或地区适用。在应然层面，民法学界对于我国应当采取哪种物权变动模式争论不休，然而普遍忽略物权变动模式变迁所损耗的社会成本。以法经济学中的效率为评价标准，从债权形式主义转换到物权形式主义，社会收益远小于其社会成本。因而，我国物权变动模式应坚持以债权形式主义为本位，并以客观化标准来判定善意取得中的“善意”。

Abstract: The normative mode of transfer of real right has been a popular topic in comparative law and a challenging issue in legislation and adjudication. The purpose of this article is to start from the concept of “disposition” in the Civil Code, to analyze the judicial cases in China, to explore the specific connotation of disposition, and to study the advantages and disadvantages of different modes of real-right transfer. The term “disposition” is often seen in the Civil Code, but there is no precise definition of “disposition” in the statute. It is generally believed that the act of disposition should refer to the legal act that directly leads to the transfer of real rights. However, the analysis of relevant judicial decisions shows that courts at all levels still follow the Creditor’s-right-oriented Formalism after the implementation of the Civil Code, and the Theory of Real-right Act, which is highly praised by civil law scholars, is not reflected in judicial practice. From the perspective of comparative law, the act of disposition is an objective existence no matter which mode of real-right transfer, but the Theory of Real-right Act is only applicable in a few countries or regions. At a normative level, civil law scholars debate endlessly about which mode of real-right transfer should be adopted in China, but generally ignore the social costs of the shifting in the mode of real-right transfer. Taking efficiency in law and economics as the evaluation criterion, the social benefit is far less than the social cost when the Creditor’s-right-oriented Formalism is transformed into the Real-Right-oriented Formalism. Therefore, the mode of real-right transfer in China should adhere to the Creditor’s-right-oriented Formalism as the standard, and use the objective standard to determine the “bona fide” element in bona fide acquisition.