The Existing Period Of The Right Of Mortgage

“Property Law” Article 202 stipulates: mortgagee shall exercise the right of mortgage during the limitations period of principal debt statutes, or the right shall not be protected by the court. Before the “Property Law” introduced, article 12 of “security law judicial interpretation” provisioned that the secured parties should exercise their rights within two years after the expiration of the principal debts aging, otherwise, the people’s court shall not support. And according to the provisions of the “Property law” 178 th, when the property law is different from the security law in the case of inconsistency, the provisions of the applicable property law shall be applicable. Although the “Property Law” on mortgage exercised issues were defined, but in particular the judicial process trial, the judge for the mortgage and the main creditor statute of limitations contact grasp is not consistent. Many scholars have many disputes on the mortgage subsisting problems. So, it’s of great importance to interpretate and applicate the property law.This is an case study paper, and the content contains a total of five parts except for the introductions.The first part, the case profile. It is about Ruihua investment disputes mortgage company brief cases, including the basic facts of the case and the referee results.The second part, the focus of controversy. This paper summed up the focus of controversy, that is, after the expiration of the statute of limitations principal debt, whether the mortgage right is eliminated. While elaborating the focus of controversy, This paper summarized the disagreements of the main focus of the disputes.The third part, nature of the mortgage term. This part includes two aspects. One is the laws and regulations of the mortgage term, and in this part the paper will analyze article 202 of the “Property Law”. This paper believe that “not legal protection” equals the mortgage’s no existence. The other is analysis on the nature of the mortgage term. With a summary statement of the theory, the paper thinks that this is mainly about the expiry of the statute on mortgage principal debt statute of limitations provisions.The fourth part, the effect of the main creditor’s rights on the mortgage during its existence.This part includes two contents: the state of the mortgage right after the expiration of the main creditor’s rights and the mortgage registration after the end of the mortgage relationship. These two issues are followed by the third part of the analysis. The paper believe that the right of mortgage should not exist when the main creditor’s rights through the course of the proceedings. If the mortgage does not claim the right to mortgage, the paper thinks that we can learn from Germany, Switzerland, the way of public notice, to give the mortgage of the right to request the lifting of the mortgage, since there are no relevant laws and regulations.The fifth part is the conclusion. The conclusions are from the previous part of the argument. The paper attempts to find out the relevant legislation and judicial problems in the analysis of this case, and to explore the improvement of the law. In the case analysis process, this paper not only focus on the dispute, but also the referee results. This paper agree with the trial of the case. But for the “Property law” 202 nd itself there are many loopholes in the legislation, in order to effectively solve social disputes and maintain social stability, this paper thinks that the relevant judicial interpretation must be introduced.