返还原物请求权如何适用诉讼时效——民法典第196条第2项的解释论

返还原物请求权如何适用诉讼时效——民法典第196条第2项的解释论

Application of Limitation of Action to the Right to Claim for Restitution

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：孙鹏
    单位：
    中文关键词：返还原物请求权;诉讼时效;取得时效;解释论
    英文关键词：right to claim for restitution; limitation of action; acquisitive prescription; interpretative theory
    中文摘要：
    民法典彻底放弃了取得时效，其第196条第2项规定请求返还未登记的动产适用诉讼时效。该动产应具有较高经济价值和可交易性。诉讼时效完成后，占有人的时效抗辩将消灭原权利人的所有权，同时使自己先占取得所有权。诉讼时效期间的起算、中断、时效完成后重新起算等规则吸收了取得时效之公然占有、自主占有、继续占有要件，对盗赃物返还请求权的特别规制兼容了取得时效之和平占有要件，而善意占有要件则被合理“放逐”。通过权利承受取得占有的，可合并计算前手已进行的时效期间，但后续侵占人的时效期间应独立重新起算。
    英文摘要：
    Rather than accepting acquisitive prescription, the Chinese Civil Code provides in Article 192 (2) for the limitation of claims for the return of unregistered chattel. Such chattel should be of high commercial value and tradability. When the time period of limitation expires, the possessor can invoke the limitation to extinguish the ownership of the original right holder and acquire the ownership by preemption. In Article 192 (2), such elements of acquisitive prescription as blatant possession, possession on one's own, and continuous possession are absorbed by the rules on the commencement, interruption and re-commencement after the completion of limitation, and the elements of peaceful possession of acquisitive prescription are incorporated into the special regulation on the right to claim for restitution of theft, but the element of good faith possession is reasonably abandoned. The last acquirer of possession benefits all periods of limitation when acquiring rights from his predecessor, but for the subsequent misappropriation, the limitation period should be recalculated independently.
    全文阅读：  点击下载