摘要：

《民法典》第419条的适用，最具争议者在于抵押权罹于抵押期间的效力。从抵押权的实现有赖协商或请求、抵押期间的可变性以及“不予保护”的措辞等方面考量，抵押期间应属于诉讼时效期间。由此，抵押权罹于抵押期间，抵押权并不消灭，但应肯定抵押物上后顺位担保权人、抵押人的一般债权人等相关第三人可援引时效完成之抗辩，此意味着抵押权丧失对抗第三人的效力。至于抵押权人尚存的相对性抵押利益，以抵押合同为据即可。据此，应支持注销抵押登记的请求，但应明确抵押权因罹于抵押期间而丧失对抗效力，否则，仅凭注销登记的司法支持并不足以使动产抵押权丧失对抗效力。

关键词:  

Abstract: The most controversial issue in the application ofarticle 202 of“the property law”，is how the legal effect of the mortgage will change if it is not exercised during the mortgage period.The mortgage period shall be the period of limitation of actions based on the variability of the mortgage period，the expression of article 202 and the fact that the realization of mortgage depends on negotiation or request.The mortgage is not extinguished when it is not exercised during the mortgage period.However，the related third parties，such as the subsequent secured parties of the mortgaged property，general creditors of the mortgagor，and so on，should be allowed make the defense of the completion of the limitation of actions，which means its loss of resistance validity against third parties.As for the relative mortgage interest of mortgagee，it could be based on the mortgage contract.So，article 419 of“PRC Civil Code”supporting the request of mortgage registration cancellation should be approved.However，the relevant provision of“the Civil Code”should make it clear that the mortgage will lose resistance validity beyond the mortgage period，otherwise，the judicial support of cancellation registration alone is not enough for the loss of resistance validity of the chattel mortgage.

Key words: Mortgage, Mortgage Period, Period of Limitation of Actions, Loss of Resistance Validity