Analysis On The Mortgage Contractual Case Between Mr.Wang And Mr.Li

In the mortgage contract dispute cases,it may involve issues such as the establishment of a main creditor's and debts contract,whether the principal creditor's rights exceed the limitation of action,and the validity of mortgage rights.People can establish civil rights and civil obligations through civil legal acts.Under the civil subjects of both parties,the two parties reached a consensus and civil legal relations were established.From the perspective of contract law,both sides entered into a contract and reached an agreement on the main contents of the contract,and the contract was established when the commitment took effect.In the form of a contract,the contract is established when both parties sign or seal.In the case of Wang v.Lee's mortgage contract dispute,Mr.Wang and Mr.Li reached an agreement on the contents of the loan agreement and both were signed and confirmed.Mr.Wang uses his own non-borrowed actual users and argues that he is not a party to the legal relationship for borrowing and has no legal basis.The limitation of action is interrupted,and the period of limitation of action is recalculated from the time of termination of the proceedings and the termination of the relevant proceedings.The statute of limitations for statute of limitations has been statutory,but the "General Principles of Civil Law"has extended the statutory cause for the suspension of statute of limitations over the"General Principles of Civil Law".Mr.Li advocated the existence of reasons for the suspension of the statute of limitations,the lack of evidence,and the absence of new laws such as the application for arbitration.The court refused to accept the letter.Mr.Li did not actively assert his claim to Mr.Wang before the expiration of the statute of limitations.Lee's principal claim had been statute of limitations.Article 202 of the Property Law stipulates that the period between the exercise of the mortgage right and the limitation period of the principal claim shall be coincident to limit the mortgage right and prevent the mortgagee from being used for a long time,which will affect the economic utility of the mortgaged property and protect the rights and interests of the mortgagee.The period of exercise of the mortgage falls within the period of the specific rights prescribed by the law.The mortgagee has not exercised his rights during this period and will not be protected by the court.In the section of the law,the exercise of the mortgage right is restricted by period,and the mortgagee has not exercised the mortgage right within the period prescribed by law,resulting in the consequences of the inability to exercise the mortgage rights,and the mortgage rights themselves are not extinguished.However,from the perspective of the mortgagee,the path of its initiative to seek the implementation of the mortgage is blocked,that is,the court does not protect the mortgagee and then exercise the mortgage.In this sense,the right is "eliminated".In the three cases,the mortgagee did not exercise the mortgage right during the period.The principal creditor's right guaranteed was lost to the statute of limitations and lost the right to success.The mortgagee exercised the mortgage again,.the court did not protect it,and there was no possibility of judicial enforcement.However,the mortgage itself still exists.In this sense,the mortgage is "eliminated".When the mortgage loses judicial enforcement,the mortgagor has the right to claim cancellation of registration.