查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論我國最高限額抵押權之法制化=A Discussion on Legislation of Limiting Maximum Mortgage |
---|---|
作 者 | 劉南英; | 書刊名 | 僑光技術學院通觀洞識學報 |
卷 期 | 1 民91.11 |
頁 次 | 頁69-79 |
分類號 | 584.26 |
關鍵詞 | 抵押權; 最高限額抵押權; 物權; Mortgage; The maximum mortgage; Title right; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國民法對於最高限額抵押權制度迄今未經立法明定,民法物權篇於民國八十六年公佈修正草案中,雖已增訂第八百八十一條之一至第八百八十一條之十五共計十五條條文,卻因故未能三讀通過,及早實施。而實務上引用現行民法普通抵押權之規定,不但問題叢生,理論上亦殊多缺陷,甚至造成法院實務見解之歧異,蓋兩者意義、效力與特性殊多不同。而觀諸修正草案內容,又有諸多不夠周延之處,現今工商社會發展,最高限額抵押權制度之需求又早已凌駕於普通抵押權之上,是以綜整各家學說,並比較分析德、日及中華人民共和國等國立法例,即有其必要,本文目的即在提出相關法制之建議,俾供立法修正更周延之參考,並為之催生。 |
英文摘要 | So far, our civil law has never clearly written a provision limiting maximum mortage. Amendment draft of Title Right Chapter of the Civil Law has been published in 1997. A total of 15 provision from Item 1 to Item 15 of Article 881 was proposed to be added but for some reasons it has failed to pass the third reading at the Legislative Yuan, and never been implem ented. In practice, therefore, the general mortage provisions of Civil Law are cited which has not only generated undue problems but also found many drawbacks theoretically. In judicial court, there are two different views of conflicting opinions on practical uses. Between the two prevalent schools there is no agreement on meaning, effect, and special features. After reviewing the proposed amendment drafts, it seemed still lacking details for peripheral business handling. Since the business world has progressed and developed so fast the requirement for mortgage has surpassed the common mortage limit. The summary of different school's theories as well as comparative analysis of legislation examples of Germany, Japan and Mainland China, herein a suggestion of mortgage legislation was presented. It is hoped to be referenced in the mortgage legislation by the Legislative Yuan, and to urge its early legislation. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。