The legislation of “sale without breach of lease” is a rule set up in the context of the creditorization of property rights to prevent the owner’s autonomy from being damaged due to the separation of ownership rights. However, protecting vulnerable lessees is not the purpose of the legislation, but only its purpose—the manifestation of legal effects at the level of social impacts. Civil law countries uphold the creditor's rights attribute of leasehold rights while strengthening their adversarial effect. In contrast, leasehold rights in Anglo-American law have the dual characteristics of property and contractual rights. Our country’s legislation inherits the legislative philosophy of German law, and relevant rules are scattered in the Civil Code, property rights, judicial interpretations, and some administrative legislation. The lease right should be understood as the sum of the rights enjoyed by the lessee to request the lessor to deliver the leased property and to occupy and use it. Theoretically, the right to claim and the usufruct right in the lease right should not be artificially separated. However, the right to claim stage. The lease right has no adversarial effect. Our country lease rights should maintain the nature of creditor’s rights, and space should be reserved for establishing property leases in special laws. The adversarial effect of the lease right is one of the situations in which the creditor’s rights are materialized. It is the inevitable result of the rich content of the law of obligations and the decline of the law of property under the restriction of the legal doctrine of property rights. The lease right is a real usufruct right based on a debt relationship, and its antagonistic effect comes from the use of the subject matter based on the lease contract based on the premise of publicity.

Jiawen Li. The Adversarial Impact of Lease Rights in Chinese Law. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2024), Vol. 6, Issue 3: 31-37. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2024.060306.

[1] Bamakan Seyed Mojtaba Hosseini, Nezhadsistani Nasim, Bodaghi Omid et al. Patents and intellectual property assets as non-fungible tokens; key technologies and challenges. [J] .Scientific Reports, 2022, 12(1).

[2] Rosa Maria Ballardini, Janne Kaisto, Jukka Similä. Developing novel property concepts in private law to foster the circular economy[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 279.

[3] Nikolić Popadić Sofija. Flood Prevention in Serbia and legal Challenges in obtaining the Land for flood risk management[J]. Environmental Science and Policy, 2021, 116.

[4] J. C. Cox, J. E. Ingersoll, S. A. Ross.  Kurt Saunders Intellectual Property and the Law of Ideas[B]. Taylor and Francis, 2021.

[5] Allen, F,J, Qian and M, J. Qian. Biofuels ePure presents an overview of biofuels obligations in the EU [J] .SUGAR INDUSTRY-ZUCKERINDUSTRIE, 2021, 146(4).

[6] K. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek. Impact of climate changes on the European industry[J]. Metalurgija, 2014, 53(2).

[7] Pepin Andrew Tuma. The Legal Nexus of Consumer Protection and Dietetics Practice[J]. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2020, 120(7).

[8] Emanuel Kanal, Jeffrey C. Weinreb. Craig Frischman Gadolinium Retention and Legal Risk Management: A Second Opinion[J]. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 2020, 17(pre publish).

[9] Gail Nomura.  Within the Law: The Establishment of Filipino Leasing Rights on the Yakima Indian Reservation [J]. Amerasia Journal,1986.

[10] Maria Trojanek. Strategiczny wymiar gospodarowania komunalnym zasobem nieruchomości [J]. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica, 2019.