Research On The Relevant Legal Issues Of Owners’ Right Of Revocation

The owner’s revocation right first appeared in the Property Law of the People’s Republic of China in 2007.It has been 11 years since then.During this period,various judicial interpretations have constantly improved the procedural and substantive requirements of the exercise of the owner’s revocation right,and enriched the connotation and extension of the relevant concepts.However,compared with other revocation rights in the field of civil and commercial law,the particularity of the owner’s revocation rights has not been fully demonstrated,and the pertinent system norms are relatively not obvious.The defects in the system and rules will inevitably bring difficulties to the actual exercise of the owner’s revocation rights.The definition of the owner’s revocation right is relatively not complicated.The basis found from the normative documents already published mainly includes the provisions of Article 78,paragraph 2,of the Property Law and Article 19,paragraph 2,of the Property Management Ordinance.Before the enactment of the Property Law,the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the owners was mainly based on administrative intervention.After 2007,with the details of the owner’s right to revoke and the improvement of relevant judicial interpretations,the owner’s awareness of safeguarding the rights was constantly enhanced.Most of the owners chose to settle disputes throughlitigation,but judicatory practice showed that the results were not satisfactory.Human meaning.Faced with the grim reality,it is the main task of this paper to clarify the boundary,subject qualification,procedure and other issues of the exercise of the owner’s revocation right as soon as possible in order to provide a broader thinking for judicial adjudication.In view of this,this article will first define the owner’s right of revocation by the way of comparison of similar concepts.On the basis of comparing other revocation rights in the field of civil and commercial law,it will focus on clarifying the characteristics of the owner’s right of revocation from the legislative purpose,the qualification of the subject of the right,the way of exercising the right and so on.The scope of the exercise subject of the right to sell is defined,and the qualification of the subject of the right to cancel is analyzed one by one for all eight forms of participation in the owners’ congress.As for the disputes about whether the owners’ Congress and the industry committee have the qualification of the subject of litigation,this paper will demonstrate the rationality and necessity of the qualification of the subject of litigation of the owners’ Committee with the case study.As for whether the resolution of the owners’ Congress and the resolution of the owners’ Committee exceeding their powers should be included in the category of procedural violation,it will be analyzed and eventually identified as an undetermined matter of validity;in the exercise of the owner’s revocation right,thenature of the first should be the period of exclusion,and the length of time should be based on the principle of "efficiency".Shorten to 60 days on the basis.In addition,this paper puts forward that the nature of the right of revocation of the owner should belong to the right of formation in the right of formation,and its right basis should be derived from the owner’s right of membership;at the same time,it analyzes the object and the nature of the right of revocation of the owner,and makes it clear that the nature of the right of revocation of the owner is the act of intention formation,and it is a legal act,Around the core of "the legitimate rights and interests of the owners",this paper interprets the procedural and substantive requirements separately;makes a special analysis on whether the resolution of the owners’ committee should be included in the procedural violation,and finally determines it as a matter of pending validity;in view of the validity of the resolution of the owners’ Congress and the industry committee,The article suggests that we should adopt the legislative technique of "retroactive invalidity",and make it clear that the content of the resolution should be distinguished according to the infringement or not,so as to distinguish the validity of the right of revocation;for compensation litigation,it is suggested that we should sue independently in addition to the right of revocation.