摘要
关于存款所有权的归属,尽管我国有关法律法规已经明确,在学术上却是一个仍有待澄清的问题,国内已有的存款人所有权说、银行所有权说、双重所有权说等从表面上看似乎都有一定的道理,但实际上均缺乏足够的说服力。可是,这一理论问题的重要性是不言而喻的,不少案件的定性与这一问题直接相关。鉴于此,有必要在梳理相关学说的基础上,正本清源,探寻存款所有权的真正归属。事实表明,虽然存款人对于存款货币财产权可以在债权、所有权之间选择行使自己的权利,但这并不影响有关法律法规立场的正确性,存款所有权非存款人莫属。新近的存款货币新型财产说不可取。
With regard to the ownership of the deposit property, though relevant laws and regulations have stipulated explicitly its nature, there are still academic debates on different theories such as depositor ownership, bank ownership and dual ownership. Such theories are apparently plausible yet in lack of theoretical support. It should be noted that judgments of many cases depend on this theoretical issue. Therefore, it is quite necessary to seek for real attributes of the deposit ownership based on thorough review of relevant theories. In fact, the depositor can choose to exercise his right to deposit property as either creditors or owners, which will not affect the correct stance of relevant laws and regulations. The ownership of deposit property belongs exclusively to depositors, thus it is not advisable to adopt a recent theory which deems the deposit as a new-type property.
出处
《北方法学》
2011年第5期41-51,共11页
Northern Legal Science
关键词
存款人所有权说
银行所有权说
存款债权说
depositor ownership theory
bank ownership theory
creditors’ deposit theory
作者简介
夏尊文，湖南理工学院政治与法学学院讲师。
