登記對抗主義廢止論，以物權變動模式二元並置的內在矛盾為中心

公示（登記）對抗主義與公示生效主義，兩種模式並存於同一法律體系，是不合理的立法舉措。原因在於，在立法論的角度，為不同物權變動模式提出匹配標準相當困難；在解釋論的層面，又存在難以解決的制度困境與邏輯衝突，動產抵押制度以及《民法典》第414條集中凸顯了這一困境。單論這兩種物權變動模式，二者可謂難分高下，各有優劣；但若將我國登記制度以及登記機構的管理成本納入考量，那麼放棄登記對抗主義堪稱最優選擇。我國應當考慮借助解釋論來實現登記對抗主義的廢除。採用分類處理的方法，機動車等特殊動產的登記應被解釋為行政管理措施，動產的登記則不被解釋為登記對抗主義，而被解釋為動產交付的例外保障機制；不動產一旦登記，則此後權利之流轉均應擴張適用《民法典》第385條采登記生效；而未登記之不動產，則通過排除第577條和第154條之失權後果作為反面激勵。

The coexistence of the two doctrines of publicity (registration) confrontationism and publicity effectivism in the same legal system is an unreasonable legislative approach. This is because from the perspective of legislative theory, it is quite difficult to propose matching criteria for different doctrines of change of property right. From the perspective of interpretative theory, it is also difficult to solve the system dilemma and logical conflict, and the movable property mortgage system and Article 414 of the Civil Code highlight this dilemma. On these two modes of property changes, each one has its own advantages and disadvantages. But if the registration system and the registration agency's management costs are taken into account, giving up the registration of confrontationism should be the optimal choice. The abolition of registration confrontationism should be achieved by the interpretative theory. Adopting a categorized approach, the registration of motor vehicles should be interpreted as an administrative measure; the registration of movable property should not be interpreted as registration confrontationism, but as an exceptional safeguard mechanism for the delivery of movable property; once immovable property has been registered, the application of article 385 of the Civil Code should be expanded to take registration into effect; and for unregistered immovable property, the consequences of loss of rights under articles 577 and 154 should be excluded as a counter-incentive.