论主债权诉讼时效经过对抵押权的影响——以《民法典》第419条的适用为中心  

The Impact of the Prescription of the Principal Obligation on the Mortgage Right——Focusing on the Application of Article 419 of the Civil Code

作　　者：张朴田 Zhang Putian

机构地区：[1]无锡市中级人民法院环境保护庭

出　　处：《北京政法职业学院学报》2024年第4期16-22,共7页Journal of Beijing College of Politics and Law

摘　　要：《民法典》第419条将抵押权行使期限限定在主债权诉讼时效期间内,对于未在该期间行使抵押权的,人民法院不予保护。但是,人民法院不予保护的确切含义不明,尤其是对于抵押人能否请求抵押权人配合涂销抵押登记存在截然不同的观点,以此而论该条规定缺乏可操作性。以后果主义司法立场着眼于解决实际问题,应将抵押权行使期限界定为除斥期间或抵押权消灭的特殊事由,抵押权人未在主债权诉讼时效期间内行使抵押权,抵押人请求涂销抵押登记的,人民法院应予支持。从担保制度基本原理考察,典型担保物权应统一参照适用《民法典》第419条之规定,而不应以担保物权成立及生效要件不同而作区别对待。Article 419 of the Civil Code restricts the exercise period of the mortgage right to within the limitation of actions on the principal obligation,and the people's courts will not provide protection for those who fail to exercise their mortgage rights during this period.However,the precise meaning of "not providing protection" by the people's courts is unclear,especially regarding whether the mortgagor can request the mortgagee to cooperate in canceling the mortgage registration,leading to a lack of operability in this provision.Adopting a consequentialist judicial stance focused on solving practical problems,the exercise period of the mortgage right should be defined as a period of prescription or a special cause for the extinction of the mortgage right.If the mortgagee fails to exercise the mortgage right within the limitation of actions on the principal obligation and the mortgagor requests the cancellation of the mortgage registration,the people's courts should grant support.From the perspective of the basic principles of the guarantee system,typical security interests in rem should uniformly refer to and apply the provisions of Article 419 of the Civil Code,rather than distinguishing based on differences in the establishment and validity requirements of security interests in rem.

关 键 词：主债权诉讼时效 抵押权行使期间 涂销抵押登记 参照适用 

分 类 号：D915[政治法律—诉讼法学]