当今社会中，网络世界的迅速发展渐成态势，其难以逆转的飞速发展状态甚至演变成了一种时代特征，网络虚拟财产的纠纷数量也随之日益增多。这一现状使得明确界定网络虚拟财产的法律性质，并对其进行有效保护成为当务之急。本文主要探讨网络虚拟财产的法律性质及其保护，共分为四章：

第一章采用案例分析法，简述具有代表性的案例情况，案例主要包括国内“网络虚拟财产第一案”李宏晨诉北极冰科技公司案、浙江淘宝网络有限公司诉李磊买卖合同纠纷以及A公司与陈某网络服务合同纠纷上诉案等。通过对不同案例的案情简述及分析发现，如今我国网络虚拟财产案件存在不同案件中对于网络虚拟财产的法律性质认定不一，用户权益难以得到保障等问题。由此，得出此类案件的争议焦点：网络虚拟财产的法律性质该如何认定。

第二章对学界现有的网络虚拟财产性质学说进行分析比较，包括知识产权说、物权说、债权说和新型权利说。笔者在本章通过查阅文献资料对现有学说的观点进行简要概述，并分析各学说的优势及局限性，最终得出本文观点——网络虚拟财产的法律性质适用物权说最为适宜。

第三章论述网络虚拟财产的权属与物权保护问题。主要包括网络虚拟财产的所有权应当归属于运营商还是用户个人，网络虚拟财产的常见共有情况以及共有虚拟财产在司法实践中的分割问题及解决方法，网络虚拟财产的物权变动模式如何确认，善意取得制度可否适用于网络虚拟财产、当网络虚拟财产受到侵害时权利人所享有的物权请求权有哪些与物权请求权如何进行适用的问题等。

第四章提出网络虚拟财产适用物权法进行保护时，法律实践中常出现的一些问题，并结合实际情况给出建议。比如网络虚拟财产案件中的证据认定问题、网络虚拟财产诉讼中当事人的举证责任如何分配以及网络虚拟财产的价值如何进行评估等。

Nowadays, the rapid development of the online world has gradually become a trend, and its irreversible development has even evolved into a characteristic of the times. The number of disputes on the network virtual property is also increasing. This situation makes it urgent to clearly define the legal nature of network virtual property and to effectively protect it. This article mainly focuses on the legal nature and protection of network virtual property. It is divided into four chapters.

Using the case analysis method, the first chapter describes the representative cases, mainly including Li Hongchen v. Arctic Ice Technology Company case which is so called “the first case of online virtual property", the dispute between Li Lei and Zhejiang Taobao Network Company over the trading agreement and the dispute between A company and Chen Appeal over the network service contract terms. Through the brief description and analysis of the cases, it could be easily found that the existing problems in China's network virtual property cases, which mainly lies in the legal nature of network virtual property is defined different in different cases, and it is difficult to protect the rights of users. Above all, we could come to the conclusion that the main focus of the dispute is how to determine the legal nature of network virtual property.

The second chapter analyzes and compares the existing theories of the nature of network virtual property in academia, including intellectual property doctrine, real right doctrine, creditors right doctrine, and new rights doctrine. By consulting the literature, I briefly summarize the views of existing theories and analyze the advantages and limitations of each theory. Finally, I am able to come up with the conclusion of this article that the most appropriate way for the legal nature of network virtual property is to the theory of real right.

The third chapter focuses on the ownership of network virtual property and real right protection, including that the ownership of network virtual property should belong either to the operator or to the user itself, the problems and solutions of co-ownership situation of virtual property in judicial practice, how to confirm the change pattern of network virtual property, the common co-ownership situation of network virtual property, whether bona fide acquisition system can be applied to in the network virtual property, what are the property claims being protected by the right holder when the network virtual property is infringed and how the property claims can be applied to.

The fourth chapter puts forward some problems that often occurs in the practice of applying the Property Law to protect network virtual property, and gives suggestions based on the actual situation, including the issue of the identification of evidence in network virtual property cases, how to distribute the burden of proof between parties in network virtual property lawsuits, and how to evaluate the value of network virtual property, etc.