论侵害抵押权的救济

发布时间：2018-06-29 06:00

本文选题：抵押权 + 侵害　；参考：《华东政法大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：论文从物权法和侵权责任法两个方面对抵押权的救济措施进行了分析、梳理,在抵押权特殊性的基础上明确各类救济措施的构成及具体适用,同时对不同救济措施之间的适用关系进行分析,阐明不同救济措施之间可能存在的争议或冲突,并提出适用建议。物权法上针对抵押权的救济主要表现为物上请求权、抵押权的保全以及物上代位权。在适用抵押权的物上请求权时需要结合抵押权价值权的特性,明确抵押权人行使“返还原物请求权”的真正含义;在抵押权保全的过程中,抵押权人仅在抵押人对抵押物的价值贬损负有责任时方有权要求抵押人提供增担保或者恢复抵押物价值,否则仅能在抵押人获得赔偿的范围行使前述权利;抵押权的物上代位权的性质应为法定的债权质权,这应当成为实务中行使物上代位权及法院裁判的理论基础。侵权责任法上,构成侵害抵押权的侵权责任应满足加害行为、损害、过错和因果关系四个要件。其中损害要件不以抵押物贬损后的价值低于担保债权的数额为必要,过错要件也不以加害人明知抵押权的存在为必要。救济方式上,侵权责任法对抵押权的救济主要表现为抵押权人的损害赔偿请求权,具体表现为恢复原状请求权和赔偿损失请求权。在损害赔偿形式的选择上,在担保债权清偿期限届满前,由于抵押权主要表现为担保利益的维持,因此应当优先考虑恢复原状,如适用赔偿损失,出于禁止得利原则应对相应的赔偿金进行提存。在物上代位权和损害赔偿请求权的适用关系上,出于明确、简化法律关系及避免双重给付的危险,应支持在我国物上代位权制度进一步完善的基础上采用物上代位权单一说。此外,抵押权保全下的增担保请求权是抵押权人的权利,同时也是抵押人的一项权利,在适用上具有优先性,可以排除抵押权人的物上代位权,在保障抵押权人担保利益的同时通过促进资金流通推动经济社会之发展。论文主要分三章进行论述:第一章梳理了物上请求权、抵押权保全权和物上代位权三种物权法上对抵押权的救济措施。首先,确定物上请求权并不包括恢复原状请求权,该项请求权应属于损害赔偿请求权的表现形式,同时明确了抵押权人可以基于妨害排除请求权而不是返还原物请求权要求不法占有人返还抵押财产。其次,抵押权人行使增担保请求权和恢复价值请求权应以抵押人对抵押物价值的贬损存在过错为前提,在抵押物非因抵押人的原因而导致价值贬损的情况下,抵押权人仅能在抵押人所获得的赔偿或利益范围内要求增加担保。最后明确了物上代位权为一种法定的债权质权,此为明确当事人关系及保障抵押权人利益提供了较优的途径。第二章主要分析了侵害抵押权的侵权责任的构成要件及侵权责任方式的具体适用。本章明确了加害行为、损害、过错和因果关系是构成侵害抵押权侵权责任的四大构成要件,并对其具体内容进行分析,强调侵害抵押权的损害不以价值贬损后抵押物的价值低于担保债权的数额为必要,判定加害人的过错时,也不以加害人明知抵押权的存在为必要。在主债权清偿期限届满前,抵押权人针对抵押财产价值贬损的救济方式应优先适用恢复原状的方式,或基于禁止得利的原则由加害人对金钱赔偿进行提存。第三章梳理了物上代位权和损害赔偿请求权之间的适用关系以及抵押权保全下增担保请求权的优先性。在物上代位权和损害赔偿请求权的关系上应当采用物上代位权单一说,以避免双重给付的风险以及复杂的法律关系。除抵押权人外,抵押人同时也享有增担保请求权。在抵押权人享有物上代位权时,应当允许抵押人行使增担保请求权以排除抵押权人的物上代位权,避免提存相应的赔偿金或补偿金,以满足抵押人、抵押权人及经济社会三方的需要。
[Abstract]:This paper analyzes the relief measures of mortgage right from two aspects of property law and tort liability law. It clarifies the composition and specific application of various relief measures on the basis of the particularity of mortgage, and analyses the applicable relationship between different relief measures, and clarifies the possible disputes or conflicts between different relief measures. The remedies for the right of mortgage are mainly manifested in the right of claim, the preservation of the right of mortgage and the right of subrogation in the property law. The real meaning of the mortgages' right to return the original object should be clearly defined by the property of the right of mortgage in the application of the right of mortgage. In the course of the process, the mortgagee is entitled to the mortgagor only when the mortgagor is responsible for the value of the mortgage, and it has the right to require the mortgagor to provide an additional guarantee or to restore the value of the mortgage. Otherwise, the mortgagee can only exercise the foregoing right in the scope of the mortgagor's compensation; the nature of the subrogation right of the mortgagor should be the legal right of claim, which should be the practice. The central bank makes the right of subrogation and the theoretical basis of the court referee. In the law of tort liability, the tort liability of infringing the right to mortgage should be satisfied with the four elements of the act of injuring, damage, fault and causality. The elements of the damage are not necessary after the value of the mortgaged goods is lower than the amount of the secured creditor's right, and the elements of the fault are not known to the injurer. The existence of the right of mortgage is necessary. In the way of relief, the remedy of the tort liability law is mainly manifested by the right of claim for the damages of the mortgaged right, which is concretely represented by the restoration of the right of request and the claim for the loss of compensation. In the choice of the form of damages, the mortgage is mainly expressed as a burden before the expiration of the period of the claim. In order to maintain the interests, it should be given priority to the restoration of the original form, such as the application of compensation for the loss of compensation, and the corresponding compensation in accordance with the principle of prohibition of enrichment. In relation to the application of the right of subrogation and the claim for damages, it is necessary to support the subrogation system in our country for the purpose of simplifying the legal relationship and avoiding the danger of double payment. On the basis of further perfection, it adopts the right of subrogation on the basis of the right of subrogation. In addition, the right to increase guarantee under the guarantee of the mortgage is the right of the mortgagee. It is also a right of the mortgagee. It has priority in the application and can exclude the right of subrogation of the mortgagee, and promote the security of the mortgagor while guaranteeing the interests of the mortgagee. Gold circulation promotes the development of economic and social. The thesis is mainly divided into three chapters: the first chapter combs the right of claim, the right to mortgage and the right of subrogation on the three kinds of property law on the relief measures on the mortgage. First, the right of claim does not include the restoration of the right of request, and the right of request should belong to the right of claim for damages. In the form of expression, it is clear that the mortgagee can claim the right to return the mortgaged property based on the right of impairing the claim instead of returning the original object. Secondly, the mortgagee should exercise the claim of the guaranty and restore the value of the claim, on the premise that the mortgagor is detrimental to the value of the mortgaged property, and the mortgages are not mortgaged because of the mortgage. In the case of value derogatory cause, the mortgagee can only increase the guarantee within the compensation or interest obtained by the mortgagor. Finally, the right of subrogation is defined as a legal right of creditor's right, which provides a better way to clarify the relationship between the parties and protect the interests of the mortgagee. The second chapter mainly analyzes the invasion of the rights of the mortgagor. The constitution of the tort liability of the right to tort and the specific application of the mode of tort liability. This chapter clearly defines the four major components of the damage, damage, fault and causality, and analyses the specific contents of the infringement of mortgage right, emphasizing that the damage to the right to mortgage is not worth the value of the mortgages after value derogation. The amount of the secured creditor's claim is necessary. When the injuring person's fault is judged, it is not necessary for the injuring person to know the existence of the right of mortgage. Before the expiration of the period of the main claim, the mortgages should give priority to the way to restore the original form to the remedies of the value of the mortgaged property, or the perpetrator's compensation for money on the basis of the principle of prohibition of profit. The third chapter combs the applicable relationship between the right of subrogation and the claim for damages and the priority of the right to increase the claim under the mortgage of the mortgage. The relationship between the right of subrogation and the claim for damages should be said by the subrogation right to avoid the risk of double payment and the complicated legal relationship. In addition to the mortgagee, the mortgagor also enjoys the right to increase the guarantee. When the mortgagee enjoys the right of subrogation, the mortgagor should allow the mortgagor to exercise the right of additional guarantee to exclude the right of subrogation of the mortgagee and avoid the corresponding compensation or compensation in order to meet the needs of the mortgagor, the mortgagee and the three party of the economy and society.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.2

【相似文献】