Theoretical concern of real right acts and claim acts in real estate deal of Japan and Germany

本研究主要是在考虑不动产交易现场的基础上，对我国已有的司法判例和普遍意见关于物权变动的效力是以交易即债权行为为基础产生的观点提出质疑，考察了我国存在讨论物权行为原义的可能性和必要性，并以德国法为比较对象。结果表明，意见认为物权变动的效力除交易即债权行为外，还应产生物权变动的效力。在支付价款等发生物权行为时，在我国仍有说服力的观点，而在德国则相反地存在否认物权行为概念存在的观点。这些事实可以评价为给了质疑的目光转向物权区分说和在我国理所当然地被认可的主张的机会，同时也澄清了仍然对物权行为概念的存在的适当性进行考察的可能性。

In this study, chiefly after keeping the scene of the real estate deal in mind, the doubt was thrown on the understood judicial precedent and the opinion of the common opinion of our country, that the effect of the real right change is generated immediately based on the bargain that is the claim act, it was examined that the possibility of discussing an original meaning of the real right act and the necessity existed in our country, while making a German law an object of comparison.As a result, it turned out that the opinion thought to generate the effect of the real right change besides the bargain that is the claim act, at the time of the real right act performed at the time of the payment of the price etc., includes a still persuasive point in our country, on the other hand, the opinion of denying the existence of the real right act concept oppositely exists in Germany.These facts can be evaluated that the chance to turn skeptic eyes to the theory of sharp distinction of the real right and the claim in our country that has been approved as a matter of course is given, at the same time as clarifying that the possibility of still examining the suitability of the existence about the real right act concept has been left.