论遗失物返还请求权的诉讼时效——对《民法总则》第196条与《物权法》第107条关系的解释

The Limitation of Action Applied to Right of Claim to The Return of The Lost Property: Relationship between The Article 196 of The General Provisions of Civil Law and The Article 107 of The Real Right Law

《民法总则》第196条将"未经登记的动产物权返还原物请求权"纳入诉讼时效的适用范围,由此产生该条规定与《物权法》第107条之规定的关系问题。将《民法总则》第196条的规定叠加在《物权法》第107条之上,所表现出的失主的未经登记的遗失物返还请求权规则为:失主对拾得人的返还请求权适用诉讼时效期间;遗失物的受让人及次受让人享有前手的诉讼时效抗辩权;受让人具备善意取得的一般要件,适用《物权法》第107条的规定,但是失主在该条所规定的期间内主张权利的,适用诉讼时效期间;受让人不具备善意取得的一般要件,适用诉讼时效期间,且遗失物的转让行为应具有导致诉讼时效中止的效力。上述解释表明,在遗失物返还问题上,善意受让人并未享有比恶意受让人更大的法律期间利益,即出现了法律漏洞。其弥补方法有三:或是将物权请求权排斥出诉讼时效的适用范围,或是大幅度延长物权请求权的诉讼时效期间,或是将遗失物排斥出善意取得的适用范围。

According to the article 196 of The General Provisions of Civil Law, limitation of action should be applied to an unregistered real right of movable property. It creates a problem of relationship between the regulation mentioned above and the article 107 of The Real Right Law. If we apply both the two regulations to the owner＇ s right of claim to the return of the original property, we will find that the legal period of the owner＇ s right to the malicious assignee is not shorter than to the one in good faith. And then we can find a legal loophole of right of claim to the return of the lost property. There are three methods to remedying the legal loophole ： If limitation of action is not applicable to the real right claim, or if the legal period of the real right claim is substantially extended, or innocent acquisition system is not applicable to the right of lost property, the legal loophole mentioned above would be remedied.