关于无权处分行为的效力问题,其实质是无权处分中的“处分”究竟指债权行为还是物权行为。通说认为我国不承认物权行为,从而无权处分中的“处分”应当理解为买卖合同等债权行为。本文分别从债权形式主义与无权处分的矛盾、种类物及未来物合同、当事人可以约定标的物所有权转移时间、适用善意取得时的问题以及维护私法自治的解释原则等五个方面推出负担行为与处分行为的区别存在,从而得出结论无权处分与物权行为具有必然的逻辑关系,处分行为只能是指物权行为。 On the issue of the effectiveness of the right to dispose of the act, its essence is the right to dispose of “punishment ” what exactly debt or property rights. Tong said that our country does not recognize the real right behavior, and thus no right to dispose of “punishment ” should be understood as the sale and purchase contracts and other debt. In this paper, we put forward the concept of burdensome behavior from five aspects: the contradiction between the formalism of obligee’s right and the disposition without authority, the type of contract and the contract of the future, the time when the parties can agree on the transfer of ownership of the subject matter, the question when applying the goodwill and the principle of explaining the autonomy of private law Discrimination exists, so as to conclude that there is a necessary logical relationship between the right to dispose and the act of property, and the act of disposition can only refer to the act of property.