earticle

영어

As an important system in modern civil law, the right of preemption is recognized in most civil law countries and regions. The preemptive right is also stipulated in the current laws, administrative regulations, judicial interpretations and even government documents. In the process of compiling our civil code, there is no doubt that the system of preemptive right should be stipulated. The new draft of the Civil Code stipulates the preemptive right of the total by shares, which is the same as the existing provisions of the Property Law. When the co-owner has transferred a share of the property to a third person, when they meet the with the third parties same conditions .Other co-owners may request preferential purchase rights. The existence of the right of first refusal is mainly to maintain the existing common relationship, Promote the best use of materials and reduce disputes between co-owners, to safeguard the interests of the group and balance the interests of the third party. When stipulating various kinds of preemptive rights in our current law, we often simply specify the subject, object and conditions of the preemptive rights with only one provision, but there is no norm on the important issues such as the legal nature, legal effect, exercise mode, exercise period and exercise effect of the preemptive rights. This makes it difficult for local courts to find an accurate legal basis in the trial of preemptive rights cases, seriously affecting the uniformity of adjudication standards and the predictability of adjudication results. This will affect the results of the various courts in the case of preemption, and ultimately undermine the authority of the law, and is not conducive to the protection of the preemptor. Considering that one of the conditions for exercising the right of preemption is that the seller concludes a contract of sale with the third party, the primary legal effect of exercising the right of preemption is to establish a contract of sale between the seller and the preemptive right holder, and the contract of sale has its own particularity in the way of establishment and the content determination, so it will be given priority. The general rule of the right of purchase is placed in the part of the contract of sale in the sub-rules of the Civil Code, which is most appropriate both in system and in logic. In order to improve the problems that will occur in practice ,the provisions of “transfer”and the comprehensive factors of “equal conditions”should be further explained.

중국어

优先购买权作为现代民法中的一项重要制度, 为多数大陆法系国家和地区的民法典所承认。 中 国现行法律、 行政法规、 司法解释乃至政府文件等也规定了优先购买权。 在当前中国编纂民法典的 过程中, 无疑要对优先购买权制度加以规定。 新出台的民法典草案中对于按份共有人的优先购买权 的规定与现有的物权法规定相同。 按份共有人对共有关系之外的其他第三人有偿转让应有部分财 产份额时, 其他按份共有人在满足与第三人同等条件交易下可以请求优先购买权。 优先购买权的存 在目的是保持已经存在的共有关系, 促进物尽其用, 减少共有人之间的纠纷, 维护共有人团体的利 益, 同时平衡第三人的利益。 现行法在规定各类优先购买权时, 往往只用一个条文简单地指明优先 购买权的主体、 客体及行使条件, 对于优先购买权的法律性质、 法律效力、 行使方式、 行使期限及行 使效果等重要问题则缺乏规范。 这导致各地法院在审理优先购买权案件时难以找到准确的法律依 据, 严重影响了裁判标准的统一性和裁判结果的可预见性。 影响各个法院对优先购买权案件的裁判 结果, 最终既损害了法律的权威性, 也不利于保护优先购买权人。 中国目前采取的立法模式本身所 具有的诸多不足之处, 考虑到优先购买权的行使条件之一是出卖人与第三人订立买卖合同, 其行使 的首要法律效果是在出卖人与优先购买权人之间成立买卖合同, 且该买卖合同在成立方式及内容 确定等方面具有一定特殊性, 故将优先购买权的一般规则放置于民法典分则编的买卖合同部分中, 无论在体系上还是在逻辑上都是最合适的。 因此, 应当利用编纂民法典的机会, 通盘考虑和设计优 先购买权制度。 为完善实践中可能发生的一些问题, 应该对“转让”规定、 “同等条件”等综合考虑因素 均作进一步解释。