查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 論民法864條之抵押權效力--兼評最高法院102年度臺上字第44號民事判決=Comments on the Effect of Mortgage of Civil Code Article 864--With Reference to Supreme Court Tai-Shan-Zi No.44 (2013) Decision |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 邱玟惠; | 書刊名 | 法令月刊 |
| 卷 期 | 66:11 2015.11[民104.11] |
| 頁 次 | 頁21-40 |
| 分類號 | 584.26 |
| 關鍵詞 | 民法第864條; 法定孳息; 租金債權; 抵押權; 收取權; 抵銷; 抵押物扣押; Article 864 of Civil Code; Statutory interest; Derivative claim; Mortgage; The entitlement to profits; Offset; Attachment of the property mortgaged; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 民法第864條雖賦予抵押權人對於租金債權之權利基礎,惟基於抵押權變價權與優先受償權之本質,以及抵押權實行方式又為法定,故抵押權人尚不得依民法第864條作為請求權基礎,而有直接請求租金債權之權利,且我國法上「抵押權人」非必即為「收取權人」,故「抵押權之效力……非指抵押權人就該法定孳息當然有收取權」。主動債權如係扣押前即已取得,依第340條反面推論承租人可以主張抵銷,被動債權之租金債權雖為將來債權,然於後續支分債權實際發生時即已有效「存在」,亦符合民法第334條具抵銷性,當事人間之抵銷契約當屬有效。慮及執行面,應容許抵押權人針對租金債權另行扣押。民法第864條之「抵押物扣押」,因我國強制執行規定,於執行名義不同時,給付內容、態樣、範圍、強制執行之客體、其可能擴張範圍等均不相同,故必須依拍賣抵押物之執行名義為扣押,方符合民法第864條之「抵押物扣押」,才有抵押權效力及於法定孳息之效果。 |
| 英文摘要 | The Article 864 of Civil Code stipulates "The effect of a mortgage extends to statutory Interest that the mortgagor is entitled to collect rent on the mortgaged property after the attachment of such property," yet the general mortgage is only a superior right of a creditor to receive satisfaction of a claim from the proceeds, accordingly, the mortgagee might not necessarily be entitled to the rent. Moreover, since various forms of the basis of enforcement are stipulated in The Compulsory Enforcement Law, the "attachment of such property" of Article 864 in Civil Code should be restricted to the condition that the attachment is conducted on the basis of enforcement petitioned for compulsory execution by mortgagee. Meanwhile, based on the reverse interpretation of Article 340 in Civil Code, when the rent has been attached by an order of the court, and if the lessee has acquired a claim from the creditor before the attachment, he is entitled to offset the obligation. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。