Comment On The Dispute Of Return The Original Property About Mrs.Duan V.Mr.Liu

With the development of China's socialist market economy,China's market transactions are more and more active,but in the process of transaction,disputes about property rights also emerge in large numbers.Taking the real right dispute as the breakthrough point,this paper selects the typical case "the case of the return of the original object with Liu" as the main case.At the same time,it introduces two related cases of "A company and B company to return the original object dispute case" and "C company v.Guan,D company repair contract dispute case".The article mainly involves the acquisition of the right of lien in good faith,the problem of possession protection after the indwelling,the exercise of the return of the original request and the consideration of the system of acquisitive prescription in this case.First,the legislative original meaning and the legislative practice of various countries(regions)do not require that the exercise of lien must be carried out against the debtor with ownership of the movable property,but only the debtor is in possession of it,and the judicial interpretation of the security law of China has also made a special provision,but the movable property of the indwelling is not in the same legal relationship with the creditor's claim.No lien is established.In this case,Liu still can't get lien.Secondly,one of the reasons for the illegal occupation of the "invaded" cause by Liu's occupation is one of the reasons.Liu can not advocate the protection,but the evaluation will change after the consideration of the relevant cases intervening in the prescription system.Thirdly,the plaintiff section of the main case can claim the right to return the original object under the current law,and Liu's claim of repayment of a certain property has broken through the principle of the contract relativity,but after the defendant's claims are not completely excluded,the request of the return of the original object can be naturally supported.There are two aspects of real right person "real right","whether Liu is no right to occupy people",and draw conclusion that more is the fact judgment,but the evaluation of the factors that are also involved in time limitation will change.At the same time,as far as the case is concerned,Liu can actually advocate the establishment of a pledge with Wen,and the claim of pledge will also return to the paragraph.The request for goods was blocked,but Liu didn't take it in court.At last,in the case of the real right dispute,the case of this article is extended to discuss the problem that the third party is not able to carry out the right of lien caused by the improper exercise of the right of mortgage,which leads to the difficult to realize the creditor's right and the relief problem after the dispute settlement.In this case,the third party should bear the supplementary liability and the original debt.The servants should still be responsible for the breach of contract.Through the analysis of the three cases and the expansion of thinking,we can draw some conclusions on the issue of the exercise of the Communist Party of the security right,and look forward to a more accurate grasp of the true meaning of the law in the judicial practice,and the necessity of establishing the system of acquisitive prescription in our country,and expect to promote the future in the treatment of the disputes of the right to material rights.Enter social transactions and maintain the order of social transactions.