Research On The Judicial Decision Of Housing Ownership In The Case Of Name-Borrowing House Purchase

In recent years,the real estate market is extremely hot.Basing on this kind of circumstance,the state and local governments have imposed many restrictions to curb the excessively rapid rise of housing prices.However,there are still some people who avoid these policies and measures to achieve their own purpose of buying a house.In this case,the form of ownership does not satisfy the rules requested by “Properly Law”,which causes the non-consistent form between the property owner in legal dimension and the property owner in actual level.Therefore,the number of ownership cases of name-borrowing house purchase is also growing.However,existing laws do not provide clear rules for the handling of such disputes,and judges have different judgments in handling such cases.Through the combing of the cases related to the purchase of houses by the local courts uploaded to the Chinese judgment papers,100 cases with the ownership of the house as the focus of the dispute were finally selected as the research object of this article.Among them,mainly the claims of ownership confirmation,the litigation of contracts and the restitution of returning materials,as well as the lesser unjust enrichment disputes,the enforcement of objections,and the disputes over creditor's rights.The court made three types of judgments on the ownership of housing property rights.The first type of judgment is owned by the name-borrower,the second type of judgment is owned by the name-lender,and the third type of judgment is that the right cannot be confirmed,but the borrower has the right to claim for a claim based on a contract and has the right to request the name-lender to follow the contract.The three different judgments were made because the courts had different views on the validity of the contract and the nature of the rights enjoyed by the celebrities.Through the analysis of the litigation case,judgment position and refereeing thinking of such cases,pointing out that the current judgment has the following four problems: at first,the court replace the law with the national policy in the source of the referee law.When the court is trying cases,the contract violates the relevant housing policy formulated by the government and determines that the contract is invalid.Secondly,different judgments were made in the same case and the identity standard was not established.The court has different understandings of Article 17 of the Property Law.Some courts believe that name-borrower can have the right to immovable property by virtue of a certificate of immovable property rights.Some courts tend to interpret that the title certificate itself cannot directly determine the existence of an entity's legal relationship.Whether or not the name-borrower can only have the right to immovable property by virtue of the immovable property certificate.Thirdly,the evidence rules lacked certainty.Fourthly,some judgments did not consider moral hazard and social costs.In some special cases,when the court awarded the property rights to the name-lender,it may violate the willingness of the party to self-interest,and it will also promote the greed of the celebrity.In order to form clear and feasible rules,we should promptly pay attention to and accurately apply the national policy provisions,reasonably set the rules of evidence and the standard of proof,distinguish the effectiveness of the act of registration by name,and achieve a good social effect of rationally balancing the interests of all of the people.