刘某诉田某和毛某一房二卖案评析-法律学专业论文.docxVIP

刘某诉田某和毛某一房二卖案评析摘 刘某诉田某和毛某一房二卖案评析 摘 要 层出不穷的“一房二卖”诉案中，确定两个房屋买卖合同的效力以及房屋所 有权归属往往是一起案件的核心问题。刘某诉田某和毛某一房二卖案亦是如此。 毛某与刘某签订的房屋买卖合同是否有效、毛某与田某签订的房屋买卖合同是否 有效及房屋所有权归属是本案的争论焦点所在。首先，毛某与刘某签订的房屋买 卖合同有效。因为刘某与毛某之间的房屋买卖合同符合合同成立的有效条件即自 愿、有偿且双方都是完全行为能力人。其次，毛某与田某签订的房屋买卖合同有 效。因为毛某虽先与刘某签订了房屋买卖合同，但其未转移房屋所有权，所以毛 某仍是房屋所有权人，其基于真实意思与田某签订房屋买卖合同是有权处分，该 房屋买卖合同也是有效的。第三，房屋所有权应该归属田某。我国物权变动的模 式采取的是债权形式主义，动产交付后发生物权变动，不动产经登记后发生物权 变动。毛菜先与刘某签订房屋买卖合同，但未办理产权过户手续，之后又与田某 签订房屋买卖合同，且办理了产权过户手续。所以，房屋所有权应该归田某。另 外，毛某对刘某、田某均存在欺诈，至于是否构成合同诈骗罪，则需要考虑是否 满足合同诈骗罪的构成要件。由于毛某与前买受人刘某签订房屋买卖合同之后， 并未转移房屋所有权，所以毛某与后买受人田某签订房屋买卖合同之时，毛某还 是具有实际履行合同的能力和条件的，并不符合合同诈骗罪的客观构成要件，所 以毛某不成立合同诈骗罪。最后，刘某在其权利受到侵害，对于法院已经生效的 调解书，提起第三人的撤销之诉相比较以毛某、田某为共同被告的新诉，更直接 更有针对性地维护自己的权益，同时也能够节约诉讼成本，维护法院对于同一诉 讼标的作出一致判决的权威性。 关键词：一房二卖；合同效力；所有权归属；合同诈骗罪；第三人撤销之诉 Ⅱ 万方数据 法律硕士学位论文Abstract 法律硕士学位论文 Abstract In the numerous cases of‘a room two sells’，the key iS to ensure validity of sales contract of two houses and house’S ownership．So are the cases of Mr．Liu’S lawsuit against Mr．Tian and Mr．Mac’S‘a room two sell’．The focuses of the argument are following：whether the house transferring agreement signed by Mr．Mac and Mr．Liu is vaJid or not；whether the house saleS contract signed by Mr．Mao and Mr．Tian iS valid or not；and the ownership of the house。Firstly，the house transferring agreement signed by Mr．Mac and Mr．Liu iS valid for the contract is conformed to conditions of validity for house transferring agreement which request willingness，compensation and that both have full capacity．Secondly，the house sales contract signed by Mr．Mac and Mr．Tian is valid．The reason is that Mr．Mao does not transfer his ownership of the house although he signs the house sales contract with Mr．Liu．Thus Mr．Mac is still the owner of the house and he has the right to sign house sales contract with Mr．Tian based on the willingness．The house sales contract is consequently valid．Thirdly，the house ownership belongs to Mr．Tian．The model of ownership change in China takes creditor’S right formalism，which mea