生效还是对抗——从最高人民法院的一则案例说起

The Requirement of Validity or Confrontation——Starting with a case of the Supreme People's Court

在我国大陆地区的立法中,对法定孳息清偿义务人的通知应当是抵押权效力及于法定孳息的生效要件而非对抗要件。从解释论上讲,无论是通过法律解释抑或法之续造的方法,均得不出对法定孳息清偿义务人的通知是抵押权效力及于法定孳息的对抗要件这一结论。从立法论上讲,该通知不管是作为生效要件还是对抗要件,都各有其优势和劣势,因此最终的条文应该是立法选择的结果,法院不能舍近求远。

In the legislation of China's Mainland, with regard to whether the mortgage right will include the legal derivatives, the notification to the obligor of the legal derivatives should be the requirement of validity but not the requirement of confrontation. From the perspective of interpretation, no matter whether it is through the method of legal interpretation or renewal of the law, we cannot come to the conclusion that the notification to the obligor of the legal derivatives is the requirement of confrontation with regard to whether the mortgage right will include the legal derivatives. In terms of legislation, the notification has its own strengths and weaknesses no matter whether it is the requirement of validity or the requirement of confrontation. Therefore, the final clause should be the result of legislative choice, and the court should stick to it.