论文总字数：19873字

摘 要

融资租赁交易近年来在我国发展迅速，交易量也呈现出持续高速增长的趋势。而我国目前对融资租赁合同的法律规制却仍不完善，主要表现为多以规章形式来规范交易问题，而欠缺明确融资租赁合同基本制度问题的法律规定。故本文从融资租赁的热点问题出发，分别就融资租赁的法律构造、租赁物的范围与公示、融资租赁合同的解除问题进行了探讨，以比较不同学术意见为前提，提出了对于这些问题的思考与观点。

正文从三个问题进行展开：第一部分，讨论了融资租赁合同的法律构造，本文从文义、比较法和司法实践等多种角度否定了“二合同论”，认为融资租赁合同并不内在地包含买卖合同，从而采取“一合同论”。

第二部分，探讨了租赁物的范围及公示，本文认为宜将不动产纳入租赁物范围以培植融资租赁的发展，且在租赁物的公示制度上应采取统一的登记制度。

第三部分，从《合同法》及相关司法解释出发探讨了融资租赁合同的解除权行使，并进一步分析了解除权与风险负担原则的并存现状，为解决这一交错现象，本文提出宜以双方协商为首要解决之道。

关键词：融资租赁 法律构造 融资租赁登记 风险负担原则

ABSTRACT

Financing leasing transactions have been developing rapidly in recent years in China, and the transaction volume has also continued to show rapid growth. At present, the legal regulation of financial leasing contracts in China is still not perfect. The main manifestations are the regulation of transactions in the form of rules and regulations, and there is no legal requirement to clarify the basic system of financial leasing contracts. Therefore, starting from the hot issues of financial leasing, this paper discusses the legal structure of financial leasing, the scope and publicity of leasing property, and the lifting of financial leasing contracts. Based on the comparison of different academic opinions, this paper proposes some considerations on these issues.
This paper consists of three main parts: The first part discusses the legal construction of financial leasing contracts. This article rejects the “two-contract theory” from many perspectives including the meaning of literature, comparison, and judicial practice, and concludes that financial leasing contracts do not include the sale and purchase contract so as to adopt the "one-contract theory."
The second part discusses the scope and publicity of the leased property. It is believed that real estate should be included in the scope of leased property to foster the development of financial leasing, and a unified registration system should be adopted in the disclosure system of leased property.
In the third part, starting from the "Contract Law" and related judicial interpretations, the paper discusses the exercise of the lifting right of financial leasing contracts, and further analyzes the coexistence of the principle of the cancellation and risk burden, and proposes that in order to solve this staggered phenomenon, the negotiation between the two parties should be the primary method.

Key words: financial leasing, one-contract theory, registration, risk bearing

目 录

摘要 Ⅰ

ABSTRACT Ⅱ

一、问题的提出 1

二、融资租赁的法律构造 1

（一）“二合同论”与“一合同论”的定义之争 1

（二）对“二合同论”的再思考 2

1.从条文来看 2

2.从比较法视野来看 3

3.从司法实践中来看 4

（三）小结 4

三、租赁物的范围及公示 5

（一）租赁物的范围 5

1.我国对租赁物范围的规定 5

2.对租赁物范围的再思考 5

（二）租赁物的公示 6

1.登记制度的借鉴 7

2.我国现有的关于登记制度的实践 8

3.我国登记制度的重构 9

(三)小结 10

四、融资租赁合同的解除 10

（一）解除权的行使情形 10

1.因履行不能而享有的解除权 10

2.因重大违约产生的单方解除权 11

（二）解除权行使的后果 11

1.融资租赁合同解除与风险负担规则的并存现状 11

2.对该并存模式的再思考 12

（三）小结 13

五、总结 13

参考文献 14

致 谢 15

一、问题的提出

融资租赁作为一种伴随着资本经济发展而出现的新型租赁方式，诞生于美国。因其融资方式的便利性不仅可规避银行信贷的严格监管，且具备节税的独特优势，故在新兴商业市场上有着大量的运用空间。在20世纪50年代的美国，如雨后春笋般涌现一大批专业从事融资租赁的租赁公司，随后融资租赁凭借其高效、灵活的融资模式席卷全球。其已经为全球无数企业提供了高效、低廉的融资服务，为世界资本市场的发展做出了不可磨灭的贡献。时至今日，这个全球性产业年贸易额已经超过1000亿美元，成为世界上最为普遍的融资形式，也是最具发展前景的产业之一。^[1]

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：19873字