论文部分内容阅读
由罗马法上的“恶意抗辩”发展而来的留置权,通常会与同时履行抗辩权发生重叠,但因留置权与同时履行抗辩权为不同性质、不同效力的权利,故二者之间并不发生典型的权利竞合,不能适用请求权竞合的一般处理原则;留置权行使缺乏必要性和合理性,构成留置权的滥用,而非为必要,债权人明显超出债权金额留置或者持续留置债务人财产的,同样构成权利滥用;留置权不适用善意取得,但其留置标的应为债务人交给债权人占有的动产,而不限于债务人享有所有权的财产。
The lien developed from the “malicious defense” in Roman law usually overlaps with the simultaneous performance of the right of defense. However, the right of lien and the right of defense to be fulfilled simultaneously are of different nature and different validity, so both Does not occur between the typical competing rights and can not apply the general principle of competing claims; the lack of the necessity and rationality of the exercise of lien, constitute the abuse of lien, rather than necessary, the creditors clearly exceeded the amount of claims lien or sustained The retention of the debtor’s property also constitutes an abuse of rights; the right of lien does not apply to goodwill, but the object of stay should be the movable property the debtor possesses to the creditor, not limited to the debtor’s ownership of the property.