Research On The Legal Issues Of Buying A House In Someone Else's Nam

With the continuous improvement of the living standards of our residents,people’s investment demand is constantly strong,coupled with China has always had the traditional idea of "living and living and playing",real estate has gradually become a hot industry in China’s economic market.In order to limit the rapid rise in housing prices,governments at all levels have issued a series of regulatory policies.However,it came into being to circumvent the policy to implement the phenomenon of buying a house by name,which has a certain impact on the healthy growth of the real estate market.However,China does not have the legal provisions for buying a house by name,so in judicial practice and the theoretical circles on the nature of the contract to buy a house by name,effectiveness,property ownership has been controversial,resulting in the grass-roots courts in the trial of the case of the purchase of a house by name,the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case." The problem of buying a house by name has become an urgent problem to be studied.This paper combs through the relevant theory of the nature,effect and ownership of the property right in detail,with a view to solving the dispute over the purchase of a house by name in judicial practice.This paper is divided into four chapters.The first chapter summarizes the dilemma brought by the behavior of buying a house by borrowing one’s name to the judicial practice,which is mainly manifested in the absence of a clear definition of the nature of the contract of buying a house by borrowing one’s name,the uncertainty of the applicable rules of evidence in judicial practice,and the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" in judicial trial.The second chapter systematically combs the current theoretical views on the nature of the house borrowing contract,and compares the nature of the house borrowing contract with that of the agency contract,the trust contract and the commission contract in detail.The author thinks that there are essential differences between the nature of the house borrowing contract and these contracts,which should be defined as anonymous contract.The third chapter combs the relevant views and reasons of the validity of the house purchase contract,and then makes a comparative analysis.The author agrees with the theory of distinction,and analyzes and discusses several cases of current contract validity dispute.When the name borrowing contract violates the purchase restriction order,it should be deemed invalid because it violates the public order and good customs;when the name borrowing contract violates the "measures for the administration of affordable housing" and transfers the purchase qualification to a family that does not have the purchase conditions,it should be deemed invalid because it violates the public order and good customs;when the name borrowing contract violates the loan restriction order,it should not violate the law The contract shall be deemed to be valid if it is mandatory in administrative regulations and does not violate public order and good customs.The fourth chapter first combs the theoretical basis to determine the ownership of housing property rights when dealing with the problem of buying houses by borrowing names,and then elaborates the ownership of housing property rights in two cases of buying affordable houses by borrowing names and ordinary commercial houses by borrowing names.When the house is affordable,the ownership of the house right should be judged according to the actual property right and the effectiveness of the contract.There are two cases when the house is an ordinary commercial house.One is that it does not involve the interests of the third party.At this time,it judges the ownership of the house right by combining the actual property right and the effectiveness of the contract;the other is that it involves the interests of the third party.At this time,it first judges whether the celebrity has the right to dispose according to the actual property right and the effectiveness of the contract,and then judges the house property right by combining the "acquisition in good faith" system Belonging.