查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 共同最高限額抵押權之重大議題析論
- 非純粹式共同最高限額抵押權得否準用普通共同抵押權之規定--臺灣高等法院111年度重上更二字第57號民事判決評釋
- 新抵押權法之適用問題研析
- 抵押權發生問題之研究
- 「物權法修正後--土地所有權與擔保物權之變動與檢討」議題討論[第二場講題:土地所有權及擔保物權於物權法修正後之變動與分析]
- 土地登記爭議評析-共同抵押權之部分塗銷
- 論利息是否以經登記者為限始受抵押權擔保--評最高法院109年度臺上字第2741號民事判決
- 共同抵押之分配
- 最高限額抵押權擔保債權額結算請求權、普通抵押權變更登記請求權之證立--評析最高法院109年度臺上字第2741號民事判決
- 計程車駕駛人執業消積極條件立法成效之探討
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 共同最高限額抵押權之重大議題析論=Analysis of Major Issues in Joint Line of Credit Mortgages |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 陳重見; | 書刊名 | 中原財經法學 |
| 卷 期 | 53 2024.12[民113.12] |
| 頁 次 | 頁59-93 |
| 分類號 | 584.26 |
| 關鍵詞 | 共同抵押權; 最高限額抵押權; 共同最高限額抵押權; 登記; 同一債權; 同時拍賣; 限定擔保金額; Joint mortgages; Line of credit mortgages; Joint line of credit mortgages; Recordation; The same claim; Sold by auction simultaneously; The amount specified for apportionment; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 關於共同抵押權之立法,民法物權編於 2007 年修正前係單採共同抵押權人「自由選擇權保障主義」,惟於 2007 年修正後,因兼採「調整主義」,故增列民法第 875 條之 1 至 4 等 4 個條文,另亦增列民法第 881 條之 1 至 17 等有關最高限額抵押權之相關規範。但關於集「共同抵押權」及「最高限額抵押權」雙重特性於一身之共同最高限額抵押權,則僅設有民法第 881 條之 10 之確定規範及民法第 881 條之 17 之準用規範,規範密度明顯不足,致施行以來迭生爭議。共同最高限額抵押權新制自施行以來所生之重大爭議,包括:是否再進一步區分為「純粹式」與「非純粹式」?兩者區別標準為何?所稱擔保債權同一性之認定標準為何?尤其,在承認非純粹式共同最高限額抵押權得予準用普通共同抵押權之調整規範時,各抵押物分擔額應如何計算?本文均有詳盡之解析。 |
| 英文摘要 | With regard to legislation the joint mortgages, before the amendment of the Rights in Rem Chapter of the Civil Code in 2007, only the doctrine of "freedom of choice protection" for joint mortgagees was adopted. However, following the 2007 amendment, due to the adoption of an "adjustment doctrine", four articles, including Articles 875-1 to 875-4 of the Civil Code, along with additional regulations related to the line of credit mortgages in Articles 881-1 to 881-17 were added. Concerning the joint line of credit mortgages, which combines the dual characteristics of "joint mortgages" and "line of credit mortgages", there are only definite regulations in Article 881-10 and applicable regulations in Article 881-17 of the Civil Code. This indicates that the density of regulations is evidently insufficient, resulting in disputes since its implementation. Several significant controversies arising from the implementation of the aforementioned new system of joint line of credit mortgages, including: whether further differentiation into "pure type" and "non-pure type" is warranted and what the criteria are for the distinction. Additionally, what are the standards for determining the identity of the secured claims? In particular, when we recognize that the provisions regarding regular joint mortgages can apply mutatis mutandis to "non-pure type" joint line of credit mortgages, how should the amount apportionable from each property be calculated? This article provides comprehensive in-depth analyses on those issues. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。