摘要
从文义而言，《物权法》第37条规定的“损害赔偿”与《侵权责任法》规定的“损害赔偿”之间可有“竞合”与非“竞合”两种关系。其实应为后者。主要理由是：（1）“最高人民法院物权法研究小组”明确承认这一立场，“全国人大常委会民法室”似乎也坚持这一立场；（2）《物权法》的立法资料基本表明《物权法》第37条规定的“损害赔偿”属侵权责任；（3）德国、台湾地区民法典均规定，“损害赔偿”请求权不为物权请求权而为“侵权行为”所包括；（4）与“竞合关系”相比，非“竞合关系”，会产生更好的社会效果。
Abstract
Explaining from the context, there may be two relationships of the "Damages" between the article 37 in "Property Law" and in "Tort Liability Law", which are "Competing Relationship" and "Non-competing Relationship". In fact, it is the latter. The main reasons why it is so are: (1)"Property Law Research Group of Supreme People's Court" acknowledges explicitly this standpoint .It seems to infer to be so that "Civil Law Department of Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress" also supports the same standpoint;(2)According to legislative materials of "Property Law" , the "Damages" of the article 37 in"Property Law" belongs to liability for tort;(3)The Civil Code of Germany and Taiwan both provide that "Damages"claim is not the right of claim,but included in"Tort";(4)Compared with"Competing Relationship","Non-competing Relationship" will produce better social effects.
NETL
NSTL
维普
万方数据