论文部分内容阅读
世界各国关于转租有放任主义、限制主义和区别主义三种立法模式,在这三种模式下,当承租人违约时,一般赋予次承租人违约责任救济权。我国《合同法》第224条虽采限制主义立法模式,但在自行转租的情况下,根据《合同法》第51条的规定,转租合同在承租人事后没取得处分权或没有得到出租人追认的应属无效,剥夺了次承租人违约责任救济权。即使大多国家在承租人违约的情况下赋予了次承租人违约责任救济权,但由于传统民法视租赁权本质上为一种债权,在承租人违约时次承租人不能以其租赁权对抗出租人所有物返还请求权,因此对次承租人保护也为不力和公平。租赁权实质上是用益物权,承租人和次承租人合法取得的租赁权将获得《物权法》的保护。
In all three countries, the legislature has three modes: subletting laissez-faire, restriction and discrimination. Under these three modes, the lessee is usually given the remedy of breach of contract when the lessee defaults. Although Article 224 of the “Contract Law” adopts the restrictive legal model, under the circumstance of subleasing by itself, according to Article 51 of the “Contract Law”, a sublease contract is not obtained after the lessee has taken the dispossession or has not been rented out People should be null and void, depriving the lessee of the right to remedy the breach of contract. Even though most countries give the lessee the remedy of breach of contract in the event of the lessee’s breach of contract, since the traditional civil law considers the leasing right essentially a kind of obligee’s right, the lessee can not confront the lessee with its leasehold right when the lessee defaults The object is returned with the right of claim, so protection of subrecipients is also ineffective and fair. The lease right is essentially a usufructuary right, and the lease right legally obtained by the lessee and the sub-lessee will be protected by the Property Law.