法学家 ›› 2024, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (3): 174-189.

• 评注 • 上一篇    

《民法典》第399条(禁止抵押的财产)评注

柯勇敏   

  • 出版日期:2024-05-15 发布日期:2024-05-16
  • 作者简介:柯勇敏,法学博士,中国政法大学法学教育研究与评估中心讲师。
  • 基金资助:
    *本文系国家社科基金重大项目“我国民法评注编纂重大问题研究”(22&ZD205)的阶段性研究成果,并受中国政法大学青年教师学术创新团队支持计划(21CXTD03)、中国政法大学青年拔尖人才培养支持计划的资助。本文案例搜集情况说明如下:(1)本文筛选案例时参照的顺位:一是最高人民法院发布的指导性案例;二是《最高人民法院公报》中刊载的案例与裁判文书;三是最高人民法院作出的生效裁判文书;四是相同案型下优先选择层级较高的法院的生效裁判文书;(2)本文的案例主要来自北大法宝数据库,案例的检索方式有二:其一是以“不得抵押”“禁止流通物”“限制流通物”等为关键词在“本院认为”部分检索,并辅以人工筛选,选取其中具有说理意义的典型案例;其二是在北大法宝数据库“法律法规”栏目中对《民法典》第399条、《物权法》第184条等条文链接的“司法案例”,以“法院级别”(中级人民法院以上)进行初步筛选,并在此基础上辅以人工筛选,选取其中具有说理意义的典型案例。

Comments on Article 399 of Civil Code of People's Republic of China (Property Prohibited from Mortgage)

KE Yongmin   

  • Online:2024-05-15 Published:2024-05-16
  • About author:Ke Yongmin, Ph.D. in law, Lecturer of Legal Education Research and Evaluation Center at China University of Political Science and Law.

摘要: 《民法典》第399条是关于禁止抵押的财产的规定。本条前三项属于《民法典》第153条第1款中的强制性规定,违反的法律效果是抵押合同无效,抵押权不成立。本条第3项应作限缩解释,允许公益目的非营利法人以新购置的公益设施作为抵押财产。本条第4项是关于抵押财产处分权的警示性规定,违反该项时应适用无权处分规则。本条第5项在解释上应采相对处分禁止说,违反该项时作为负担行为的抵押合同有效,登记机构应办理抵押权登记,相应的处分行为相对无效,即仅针对申请执行人无效。抵押权的行使以查封、扣押或监管措施解除为前提。查封、扣押或监管措施未公示时,不得对抗善意的抵押权人,此时抵押权人可以对抗申请执行人。禁止抵押的财产除本条前三项列举外,还包括法律、行政法规规定的其他类型。

关键词: 抵押财产, 禁止抵押, 宅基地使用权, 公益设施, 查封

Abstract: Article 399 of the Civil Code is about property that is prohibited from being mortgaged.The first three items of this article belong to the mandatory provisions in the first paragraph of Article 153 of the Civil Code.The legal effect of violation is that the mortgage contract is invalid and the mortgage right is not established.Item 3 of this Article shall be interpreted in a limited way to allow non-profit legal persons for public welfare purposes to use newly purchased public welfare facilities as mortgageable property.The fourth item of this article is a warning provision on the right to dispose of the mortgaging property.In case of violation of this item, the rule of no right to dispose shall apply.In the interpretation of item 5 of this article, the relative prohibition of disposal shall be adopted.The mortgage contract in violation of this item is valid, and the registration organ shall register the mortgage, and the corresponding disposal act is relatively invalid, that is, it is invalid only for the person applying for execution.The exercise of the mortgage shall be premised on the sealing up, distraining or lifting of regulatory measures.When the measures of sealing up, distraining or supervision are not publicized, they shall not confront the mortgagee in good faith.In this case, the mortgagee may confront the applicant for execution.In addition to the preceding three items listed in this article, the property prohibited from mortgaged shall also include other types prescribed by laws and administrative regulations.

Key words: Mortgaged Property, Mortgage Prohibition, Right to Use a House Site, Public Welfare Facilities, Sealing