On The Sale Of Non-lease-breaking Rules

This article brought to the appeal from the prosecution and the court commuted retrial of the case begins, in theory, put forward on how to understand and that is not the sale of lease-breaking rules, judicial practice in the proper use of this rule and a series of questions. With these questions in this paper elaborated on the sale of lease-breaking rules do not have a theoretical basis, and then from Germany and Japan, countries such as China and Taiwan, the legislative provisions into a sale lease-breaking rules do not apply to the elements, and the application of these elements should be noted Some of the issues discussed and put forward their views. The article then summarized the analysis of the rent during the lease-ownership changes in effect. In China's Taiwan and foreign legislation on the basis of Article 229 of China's Contract Law stipulates that reflect China's Contract Law provides that the existence of less than five aspects, namely: the leasehold on the scope of the property, including being properly; not In order to transfer the lessee's lease-hold tenancy and delivery of materials for the elements of the transaction is not conducive to security; change in ownership during the lease to not break the lease sale rule applies to the elements, and does not impose any restriction, loss of the Pan-off; the lack of Permitted provisions; the effectiveness of the provisions, such as incomplete, and propose recommendations to improve. Finally, the specific case of the judiciary in this article retrial of this case was made for revision of the legal interpretation and judicial practice should be of concern were discussed.