民法典時代抵押權存續期間之存廢──基於比較私法與私法史的考察

民法典時代，抵押權存續期間在立法上擴張為登記擔保物權存續期間，在學說中還有向所有擔保物權甚至動產和權利擔保類型擴張的趨勢。在法典體系中，存續期間規則造成體系衝突與失衡。抵押權存續期間不是大陸法系的普適命題，而是混合繼受下中國民事立法的局部經驗。《民國民法》為了化解請求權因時效完成而消滅後抵押權無所依託的問題，首創抵押權除斥期間規則。當代我國臺灣地區民法學說對該規則的解釋論發生了轉向，強調抵押人利益的維護，淡化了與時效制度的關聯。我國大陸民事立法借鑒我國臺灣地區“民法”的過程中，忽略了規範的歷史背景，並不斷為抵押權存續期間尋找新的正當性基礎。抵押權存續期間在利益衡量、經濟政策等方面的正當性均不成立，應修改為債權人怠于行使權利時抵押人請求行使抵押權之規則。

In the era of the Civil Code, the legislative extension of mortgage duration to that of a registered security right, and the doctrinal expansion encompassing all types of security rights, including those over movables and rights, have created conflicts and imbalances within the Civil Code. The concept of mortgage duration, contrary to universal principles in civil law traditions, represents a distinctive feature of Chinese civil legislation within a mixed succession framework. The Civil Law of the Republic of China introduced the exclusion period rule for mortgages to address the challenge of mortgages lacking a basis after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Contemporary civil law doctrine in Taiwan has changed its interpretation of this rule, with an increasing emphasis on safeguarding the mortgagee’s interests while gradually diminishing its connection to the limitation system. However, in mainland China’s assimilation of Taiwan’s civil law, the historical context of this norm has been disregarded, leading to an unwarranted expansion of the legitimacy of mortgage duration. From the perspective of interest balancing and economic policies, this approach lacks justification. Therefore, it is advisable to revise this rule and transform it into an enforcement mechanism for the mortgagee in cases of the creditor’s negligence in exercising their rights.