【摘要】：隨著社會經(jīng)濟的高速發(fā)展，房地產(chǎn)抵押已經(jīng)成為一種重要的融資手段。我國的法律、法規(guī)和規(guī)章對房地產(chǎn)抵押問題有所規(guī)范，如《城市房地產(chǎn)管理法》、《房屋登記辦法》、《土地管理法》、《土地登記辦法》、《擔保法》、《物權(quán)法》等。但是目前我國倘無一部完善的不動產(chǎn)登記法，而且關鍵是現(xiàn)在的不動產(chǎn)登記機構(gòu)不統(tǒng)一，機構(gòu)之間的信息銜接溝通做得不夠好，仍然無法避免的造成房地分別抵押的情形。 對房地分別抵押貸款案進行分析，基于土地使用權(quán)與房屋所有權(quán)既是相互依附又是相互獨立的兩種不同的物權(quán)，在房地一致原則下，土地使用權(quán)抵押權(quán)與房屋所有權(quán)抵押權(quán)的關系也應遵循“地隨房走、房隨地走”的原則，但在實踐中房地分別抵押不應因違反房地一致原則一味絕對的認為其無效，房地分別抵押在保證最后歸屬一體的情形下，以登記為生效要件和形式要件，兩抵押權(quán)人就其設定抵押權(quán)的土地使用權(quán)與房屋所有權(quán)各自享有抵押權(quán)，而未設定抵押權(quán)的土地上的房屋或房屋占用范圍內(nèi)的土地也視為一并抵押，但抵押效力不得對抗就未設定抵押權(quán)的財產(chǎn)進行了抵押權(quán)登記的抵押權(quán)。房地分別抵押分別有效，兩項抵押權(quán)僅就其設定抵押權(quán)的財產(chǎn)分別優(yōu)先受償。也就是說在實現(xiàn)抵押權(quán)時，就房屋及其占用范圍內(nèi)的土地使用權(quán)一并變價，若價款足以清償兩債務，那么分別抵押，分別受償，若價款不足以清償兩債務，那么兩抵押權(quán)人就其享有抵押權(quán)的抵押物所占變價款中的比例分別優(yōu)先受償。 當然，若想真正貫徹房地一致原則即“地隨房走、房隨地走”的原則不再出現(xiàn)房地分別抵押的情形，更為了保障不動產(chǎn)交易安全，有效保護不動產(chǎn)權(quán)利人的合法財產(chǎn)權(quán)的需要，統(tǒng)一不動產(chǎn)登記機構(gòu)才是一勞永逸的方法。然而在不動產(chǎn)登記機構(gòu)尚未統(tǒng)一之前，，要想堅持“房地合一”的立法原意，可以從債權(quán)人控制自身風險，抵押權(quán)登記機關合理限制，最高人民法院出臺相關司法解釋等多方面采取相應措施。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of social economy, real estate mortgage has become an important means of financing. The laws, regulations and rules of our country regulate the issue of real estate mortgage, such as "Urban Real Estate Management Law", "Housing Registration method", "Land Management Law", "Land Registration method", "Guaranty Law", "Real right Law" and so on. But if there is not a perfect real estate registration law in our country, the key is that the real estate registration institution is not unified, the information link and communication between the agencies is not good enough, and it is still unavoidable to cause the premises to be mortgaged separately. Based on the analysis of separate mortgage cases of premises, based on the fact that the right to use land and the ownership of houses are both dependent on each other and independent of each other, under the principle of consistency of premises, The relationship between the mortgage of land use right and the mortgage of house ownership should also follow the principle of "go with the house, go anywhere", but in practice, the separate mortgage of the premises should not be regarded as null and void because of violating the consistent principle of the premises. Under the condition that the premises are mortgaged separately under the condition that the final ownership is integrated, the two mortgagees shall have the mortgage on the land use right and the house ownership right of which they have created the mortgage right, in order to register as the effective and formal elements. But the house on the land without mortgage or the land occupied by the house are also regarded as mortgage together, but the effect of the mortgage shall not be against the mortgage registered on the property without the hypothec. The premises are mortgaged separately, and the two mortgages are preferentially repaid only for the property in which the hypothec is created. That is to say, when the mortgage is realized, the right to use land within the house and its occupied area is subject to change in price. If the price is sufficient to pay off the two debts, then the mortgage is charged separately, and if the price is not sufficient to pay off the two debts, Then the two mortgagees are respectively given priority to the proportion of the mortgage in the variable price. Of course, if you want to truly implement the principle of "go with the house," the principle of "go with the house, go anywhere" will no longer appear the case of separate mortgage of the premises, and in order to ensure the security of the real estate transactions and effectively protect the legitimate property rights of the real estate owners, The unification of real estate registration agencies is the only way once and for all. However, before the real estate registration authority is unified, if we want to adhere to the legislative intent of "the unity of premises," we can control our own risks from the creditors, and the mortgage registration authorities can reasonably limit, The Supreme people's Court issued relevant judicial interpretations and other aspects to take appropriate measures.
【學位授予單位】：湖南大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.2;D922.29

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前5條

1 周紅鏘,林平;試論我國不動產(chǎn)物權(quán)登記機關的統(tǒng)一[J];杭州師范學院學報(自然科學版);2004年03期

2 楊永清,曹英;房屋和土地沒有同時抵押時抵押登記的效力[J];人民司法;2002年03期

3 陳宏榕;立法上應確立統(tǒng)一的不動產(chǎn)登記機構(gòu)[J];引進與咨詢;2002年06期

4 曲珍英;房產(chǎn)登記的法理和登記機關的選擇[J];政法論叢;2005年02期

5 朱志強;;土地使用權(quán)與地上建筑物分別抵押的效力問題及建議[J];中國房地產(chǎn)金融;2011年03期

本文編號：2271015