抵押权时效问题的民法表达

抵押权时效问题的民法表达

On the Civil Law Expression of Mortgage Prescription

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：邹海林
    单位：中国社会科学院法学研究所
    中文关键词：抵押权;时效;诉讼时效;除斥期间
    英文关键词：mortgage;prescription;limitation of action;scheduled period
    中文摘要：
    我国物权法第202条对抵押权的时效问题已有自创性的表达，为学理和司法实务制造了解释难题。缺乏对立法例经验借鉴的科学分析，总结我国司法实务的经验不足，以致物权法就抵押权的时效问题的表达具有了权宜性特点，内容草率、简单。抵押权的时效问题，依照物权法定主义，应属物权关系范畴，与我国民法规定的诉讼时效制度本无联系，这是物权法表达抵押权的时效问题的基础。因为有此考虑，我国物权法难以借鉴法国、日本和德国民法的已有制度经验，但可以借鉴渊源相近的我国台湾民法的相应表达。物权法第202条若以除斥期间制度来表达抵押权的物权变动及其效果，所有的解释难题将不复存在。
    英文摘要：
    In traditional civil law jurisdictions, there have been various choices of structure and logic for the civil law expression of mortgage prescription. Article 202 of the Chinese Property Law gives its own original expression on this matter. However, this expression is designed expediently for some practical purposes and, as a result, its content is too simple to be interpreted comprehensively. Various views on the interpretation of the mortgage prescription expression in China are confused and assumed to be ineffective both in law-making and in legal hermeneutics. According to the rule of statutory real rights, mortgage prescription should be subject to the specific provisions of property law and has nothing to do with the limitation of action generally. In consideration of this fact, Chinese Property Law cannot draw on the expression of mortgage prescription in the civil laws of France, Germany and Japan, but may benefit from relevant expressions in the "civil law" of Chinese Taiwan Province. It means the end of all the confused interpretations if Article 202 of the Chinese Property Law expresses the changes and effects of a mortgage based on scheduled period.
    全文阅读：  点击下载