《物权法》留置权规则的解释适用与立法反思

Interpretation and Reflection of lien rules of Property Law

《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。

Property Law significantly revised the lien rules of Security Law,however judicial cases gradually showed issues of it. In drafting the judicial interpretation of proprietary security rights,it should response to the needs of judicial cases,in Compiling Civil Code,it should thoroughly correct the error. Property Law arbitrarily expanding the debts scope applied to liens and awarding priority to the creditor only basing on his possession of the subject is obviously unfair for other creditors,it should expand the scope of the right of defense by the provisions of the general rules of obligation law in Civil Code and limit the scope of liens. Property Law provides positive and negative elements reversely,it should negatively preclude creditor＇s illegal possession of the debtor＇s property,but actively require legal possession,as a result restricting the applies of liens; it should loosely require the creditor occupying properties basing on business practices to enjoy the commercial lien but negatively excluding implications,leading to the abuse of the commercial lien. Results of lien rules deviating from target also highlights the defects of theoretical research and the technique on expression of legislative provisions.