《海商法》修改背景下船舶所有權變動的法律解釋論——以法律規範相互融貫之展開

The Law Interpretation of the Change of Vessel Ownership under the Background of Amend of Maritime Law—the Development of Legal Norms Is Consistent with Each Other

我國《民法典》第225條與《海商法》第9條是關於船舶所有權變動一般規則的現有立法，二者雖然都採取了“登記對抗”的立法模式，但均未明確船舶所有權變動的生效要件，學界和司法裁判對此存有分歧，而在“登記對抗”的第三人範圍方面也存在“善意與否”的衝突。《買賣合同司法解釋》第7條規制船舶多重買賣，該條規範在法解釋上存在諸多疑問。為使船舶所有權變動規範群下的規範相互融貫，在法解釋論方面，“以交付為船舶所有權變動的生效要件”為邏輯起點，明確“登記對抗”的實質是在船舶所有權變動未予登記時賦予善意第三人否定出賣人和買受人之間發生所有權變動的權利；《海商法》第9條中的第三人應限定為“善意”且“善意”宜通過反面排除的方式界定，即“排除存在惡意欺詐的第三人”；發生船舶無權處分時，第三人能否取得所有權，需要經過“登記對抗＋善意取得制度”的檢驗。同時，應明確船舶所有權的多重買賣包括無權處分和有權處分，區分不同情形闡釋司法解釋確定的所有權歸屬規則的邏輯構成。

Article 225 of the Civil Code and Article 9 of the Maritime Law are the existing legislation on the general rules of ship ownership change. Although they both adopt the legislative mode of ''registration antagonism'', they do not specify the effective conditions of ship ownership change. There are differences between the academic community and judicial judgment on this, and there is also a conflict of ''good faith or not'' in the scope of the third party of ''registration antagonism''. Art. 7 of The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law for Sales Contracts regulates multiple sales of ships. There are many questions in the interpretation of this article. In order to make the norms under the regulation group of ship ownership change conform to each other, in the aspect of legal interpretation, ''taking delivery as the effective condition of ship ownership change'' is the logical starting point. ''Registration antagonism'' essentially gives the third party the right to deny the ownership change between the seller and the buyer. The third party in Article 9 of the Maritime Law should be limited to ''good faith'', and ''good faith'' should be defined by negative exclusion, that is, ''excluding a third party with malicious fraud''. In case of unqualified disposition, whether the third party can finally acquire the vessel ownership needs to go through the test of ''registration antagonism &bona fide acquisition system'', and whether the third party can constitute the double standard of ''possession ®istration'' suitable for bona fide adoption. At the same time, it should be clear that the multiple assignments of vessel ownership includes the qualified disposition and the unqualified disposition and it is necessary to analyze the logical composition of the ownership rules determined in Art. 7 of The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law for Sales Contracts.