《物权法》留置权规则的解释适用与立法反思

发布时间：2018-03-18 10:27

本文选题：留置权　切入点：抗辩权　出处：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2017年02期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：《物权法》大幅修改了《担保法》的留置权规则,但司法实践逐渐显现问题。在起草担保物权司法解释时,应有的放矢地回应司法需求,在编纂民法典时,应彻底纠正错误。其武断扩大留置权适用范围,仅基于债权人占有标的物即赋予优先受偿权,对其他债权人显失公正,未来应通过债法总则之规定扩大抗辩权适用范围,缩限留置权适用范围。其就留置权构成要件,颠倒使用积极要件与消极要件,就债权人占有债务人财产,本应消极排除不法占有,却积极要求合法占有,不当限制制度适用;就商事留置权之牵连性,本应宽松要求基于经营行为占有财产,却消极排除牵连性,导致制度滥用。留置权实践偏离立法预期目标,亦凸显立法条文表达科学化理论研究与立法技术之不足。
[Abstract]:The property Law has greatly amended the lien rules of the Security Law, but the judicial practice has gradually become problematic. When drafting the judicial interpretation of security interests, it should respond to the judicial needs in a targeted way, and when compiling the Civil Code, it is necessary to respond to the needs of the judicature in a targeted way. The application scope of lien right should be completely corrected, only on the basis of the creditor's possession of the subject matter, it will give priority to the right of repayment, and it will be unfair to other creditors. In the future, the scope of application of the right of defense should be expanded through the provisions of the general provisions of the debt Law. The scope of application of the contractile lien. It reversed the use of the positive and negative elements of the lien, and the creditor's possession of the debtor's property should have been negative-excluding illegal possession, but it actively requested legal possession, and the system of improper restriction was applied. With regard to the implication of commercial lien, it should be lenient to require possession of property on the basis of business behavior, but passively exclude implicacy, which leads to the abuse of system, and the practice of lien deviates from the expected goal of legislation. It also highlights the shortcomings of scientific theoretical research and legislative techniques in the expression of legislative provisions.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学民商法学院;
【分类号】：DF521

【相似文献】