论主债权诉讼时效届满后抵押权的效力——以《民法典》第419条为研究对象

Analysis of the Validity of Mortgage Rights after the Expiration of the Limitation Period for the Principal Claim——On the Article 419 of the Civil Code of China

《民法典》第419条中“人民法院不予保护”的含义应该以“抵押权从属性说”为理论基础作解释。主债权诉讼时效届满后,债权不受法律保护,抵押权基于从属性同样不受法律保护,抵押权与主债权都保持存续状态。时效抗辩权应当包含在抵押权从属性的扩张解释范围内。抵押期间不是一种独立的期间,而是抵押权从属性特征的具体表现。为符合《民法典》第419条命令性规范的性质以及实现促进交易的目的,抵押担保关系当事人不能自行约定抵押期间。《民法典》第419条规定可以类推适用于质权、留置权。

The meaning of“the people’s court does not protect”in Article 419 of the Civil Code should be interpreted on the theoretical basis of the“mortgage subordination theory”.After the expiration of the limitation period of the principal claim,the principal claim is not protected by law,and in the meantime,the mortgage right is not protected by law based on the subordination.The mortgage right and the principal claim remain in existence.The defense of limitation should be included in the extended interpretation of the subordination of the mortgage.The mortgage period is not an independent period,but a specific manifestation of the characteristics of the mortgage subordinate property.In order to comply with the nature of the instructive norms of Article 419 and to achieve the purpose of facilitating the transaction,the parties to the mortgage-secured relationship cannot agree on the mortgage period on their own.Article 419 of the Civil Code provides that it can be applied by analogy to pledges and liens.