부산대학교 도서관

不动产作为社会生活中极具重要的生产资料，在充分发挥不动产用益 价值时将对增进权利人收入有所裨益. 但当权利人对不动产的用益产生溢 出效应，即产生的噪声、烟雾、气味等不可量物时，必然将影响相邻物 权人对相邻不动产的用益，从而导致二者权利发生冲突. 物权法领域的不 可量物侵害制度旨在协调不动产权利之间的利益冲突，以实现两方权利 人对不动产用益价值的最大化. 在该制度安排下，当一方不动产权利人因 利用不动产而产生的不可量物侵害，相邻不动产权利人在一定程度内负 有容忍义务. 该容忍义务作为相邻不动产权利人之间行使权利的边界，从 而达致定纷止争之功能. 根据《中华人民共和国物权法》第90条之规定： “不动产权利人不得违反国家规定弃置固体废物，排放大气污染物、水污 染物、噪声、光、电磁波辐射等有害物质”. 该条在立法层面确立了“国家 规定”为不可量物侵害发生时容忍义务的上限标准. 从该条文意进行反向 解释可知，若不动产权利人的不可量物侵害行为并未违反或达到国家规 定，则被侵害人在此范围内负有容忍义务. 虽然，《物权法》第90条明确规定了被侵害人承担容忍义务与否的唯 一判别标准，但司法裁判中对该标准贯彻并不统一. 经类型化分析后可 知，在企事业单位生产经营领域，司法裁判以“不得违反国家规定”作为承 担容忍义务与否的判断标准；而在自然人邻里生活领域却未将“不得违反 国家规定”的判断标准予以贯彻. 被告为企事业单位时，法院往往要求原 告举证证明被告排放的噪声、辐射等不可量物侵害超过国家规定标准， 否则承担败诉风险. 而纯粹市民生活中的不可量侵害案件，无需首先证明 来自邻地的不可量物超过了国家规定的标准，只要来自相邻不动产的不 可量物侵害按照一般社会生活经验构成妨害、超过合理使用的范畴或者 满足利益衡量标准，原告的诉讼请求就会得到支持，相比于企事业单位 经营领域，不动产权利人对不可量物侵害负有较低容忍义务. 市民生活领域与企事业经营领域容忍义务判断标准的分野，主要原因 在于不同主体之间代表着不同性质权益. 纯粹自然人之间的邻里纠纷只涉 及私人权益冲突，但在企事业单位生产经营领域往往涉及社会整体经济 利益乃至公共利益. 当个人权益和社会公益发生冲突时，为最大程度实现 法之正义，个人权益在一定范围内应做出让步. 虽然，现行法中并未将社 会公益领域与个人权益领域间不可量物侵害的容忍义务标准进行区分. 在 对《物权法》颁布十年间关于不可量物侵害的司法裁判进行类型化分析 后可知，司法实践中确已经形成区分․物权编》编纂期间，立法层面应对 司法裁判这一惯例予以回应与肯定，不宜继续沿用现行《物权法》第90 条中的“不得违反国家规定”作为不可量物侵害中被侵害人承担容忍义务与 否的判断标准.
As important means of production in society, the real property will benifit its holder when they’re made full use of. But holder’s use of their real property usually has spillover effects on the neighbouring the real property by the imission of noise, smoke, smell etc. Then the right of neighbouring real property holders comes into conflicts. The rule of immission in the property law is aimed at alleviating conflicts hereinafter and maximizing the value of the real property. According to the rules of immission, the holder of thereal property has to bear a toleration duty when his or her neighbours emit immission during the use of his own real property. The obligation of normal toleration functions as limitation of property rights between the real property holders and solves disputes between them. According to the article 90 of Property Law of People’s Republic of China: “No holder of real property may discard solid wastes or discharge such harmful substances as atmospheric pollutants, water pollutants, noise, light and magnetic radiation with violation of the related provisions of the state.” Thus the upper limit of criterion for toleration duty is unified in “the national standard”. To understand from an adverse perspective, the real property holder shall tolerate such immission from neighbour within the standard prescribed in the relevant regulation of the state. Although there’s single criterion for toleration duty in legislation of property law, there still exists different criteria in court decision of juridical practice. After analyzing relevant cases we can find that the court applies the “national standard” criterion prescribed in the Article 90 of Property Law in cases involved enterprises and institutions. When dealing with cases involving only narural persons, the court tends to make decision by other criteria and do not stick to the “national standard” criterion. The court requires that the platiff shall bear the burden of proof to show that immission from defendant’s real property is in excess of national standard when the defendant is enterprises or institutions. While the parties are both natural persons, the court lowers the criterion of toleration duty and support the plaintiff only if the immissions shall compose nuisance viewed from normal social life or surpass the limitation of reasonable use or go against the rule of interest balance. The proof of “national standard” is not required and the holder of the real property burdens a lower toleration duty in the cases of this kind compared to the former kind. There exists distinction of criterion for toleration duty between cases involved natural person solely and those involved enterprises and institutions and the reason lies in the different interests representated by different parties. The disputes between natural persons involve only private interest while the other kind can involve public interest. To obtain the justice of law to the maximum degree, the private interest shall yield when colliding with the public interest. Although the current legislation didn’t make a differ from immission involved with private interest only and immission involved with public interest, but we can see such tendency already exists in the juridical practice of people’s court after category analysis. The General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China is being drafting right now and it’s high time that legislation shall respond to the juridical practice. The “national standard” criterion prescribed in Article 90 shall not continue to be the criterion for the toleration duty of immission.