抵押合同债法效力的解释进路

The Way to Explain the Effect of Obligation of Mortgage Contract

《中华人民共和国民法典》第400条承袭《中华人民共和国物权法》第185条对《中华人民共和国担保法》第41条规定的抵押合同生效模式进行了改变,但同样未就抵押合同的债法效力问题作出明文规定。《中华人民共和国民法典》颁布前,就登记要件主义下抵押未登记时的抵押人责任,既有理论和司法实践将《中华人民共和国合同法》第107条之适用视为当然,对此,应当予以系统反思。就债法面向的抵押合同及抵押登记义务,在保证合同进路与买卖合同进路之外,存在以原因行为无偿性为切入点的赠与合同解释路径,抵押合同(之债权行为面向)之无名部分可以类推适用《中华人民共和国民法典》合同编赠与合同规则;进而,抵押登记义务因《中华人民共和国民法典》第658条第1款之任意撤销权而应予以柔化,从而使得《中华人民共和国民法典》第577条之当然适用一般性地落空;同时,柔化之抵押登记义务,可据《中华人民共和国民法典》第658条第2款之公证再予以要式强化;抵押登记义务柔化几乎一概性地排除了抵押人违约责任的证立,但债权人利益保护仍得于"三层次担保结构"中渐次加持而得以周全。

Following article 185 of the Property Law of PRC, article 400 of the Civil Code of PRC changes the effective mode of mortgage contract in article 41 of the Guaranty Law of PRC. At the same time, it does not have clear written statement on the effect of mortgage contract, which constitutes a legal loophole. Before the promulgation of the civil code, the application of article 107 of the Contract Law of PRC is taken as a matter of course and should be reconsidered in both theory and judicial practice in respect of the responsibility of the mortgagor in case of unregistered mortgage under the doctrine of registration effectiveness. Mortgage contract and mortgage registration obligations, other than "suretyship contract explanation path" and "business contract explanation path", there is a third explanation path "donative contract explanation path", namely: because of the non–payability of causal action, mortgage contract(the untypical part of obligational action) should apply donative contract rules of the 11 th chapter of the Civil Code of PRC by analogy. Furthermore, the mortgage registration obligation should be softened due to the arbitrary revocation right of article 658(1) of the Civil Code of PRC, which makes the general application of article 577 of the Civil Code of PRC void. Meanwhile, the flexible mortgage registration obligation can be further strengthened according to article 658(2) of the Civil Code of PRC. The softening of mortgage registration obligation almost uniformly excludes the evidence of the mortgage holder’s liability for breach of contract, but the protection of the creditor’s interests still could be gradually consolidated in the "three-level guarantee structure".