本篇论文目录导航：
【题目】 《物权法》第202条司法适用困境探析
【引言】抵押权行使期限与诉讼时效探究引言
【第一章】抵押权制度相关立法情况及研究现状
【第二章】担保物权行使期间的性质界定
【第三章】 《物权法》第202条司法适用现状及相关问题
【第四章】对于《物权法》抵押权制度立法完善
【结论/参考文献】 《物权法》第202条司法体系优化研究结论与参考文献
目 录
引 言
一、 相关立法情况及研究现状
（一）域外立法情况及相关学说
（二）我国大陆地区立法情况及学者争议
二、 担保物权行使期间的性质界定
（一）民法中的时间规范
（二）担保物权的性质
三、《物权法》第 202 条司法适用现状及相关问题
（一）《物权法》第 202 条司法适用现状
（二）关于“主债权行使期限届满，抵押权是否随之消灭”的司法适用问题
（三）关于抵押权行使期限的司法适用问题
四、对于《物权法》第 202 条的司法适用及立法完善
（一）对于《物权法》第 202 条的司法适用
（二）对于《物权法》第 202 条的立法完善
（三）灵活变通当事人约定抵押权的行使期间
（四）警示银行业可能面临的风险
结 论
参考文献
致 谢
摘 要
“抵押权人应当在主债权诉讼时效期间行使抵押权；未行使的，人民法院不予保护”.这是 2007 年颁布的《物权法》第 202 条内容。此法条出台后，在学界、实务界引起了广泛的相关研究以及针对各类司法适用问题的相关讨论。
关于抵押权的行使期限、主债权诉讼时效超过后抵押权是否消灭等人民法院审理案件时遇到的实际疑难问题，全国各地各级人民法院对此都有着不同的理解与裁判，这一法条的争议细节亟待立法机关对法律进行修订或者由最高人民法院出台相应的司法解释。
本文围绕《物权法》第 202 条内容，分为四部分对其司法适用问题进行由浅入深的渐进式探讨：第一部分从目前抵押权（担保物权）的立法现状及学者研究梳理了从域外到国内，各国家地区对抵押权的立法态度及争议讨论；第二部分深入分析了我国现行民事法律体系中对时间期限、担保物权权利的相关立法表述以及司法适用规制；第三部分着重阐述分析人民法院在进行《物权法》
第 202 条司法适用过程中遇到的问题，主要研究了具有代表性的“主债权行使期限届满，抵押权是否随之消灭”以及抵押权行使期限的相关问题，通过对司法适用现状的总结，得出针对《物权法》第 202 条亟需细节完善以及出台具体司法解释的结论；第四部分是关于完善我国担保物权司法适用的思考，从《物权法》立法表述、抵押权司法配套制度、抵押权行使期限约定、作为抵押权人的银行业四个角度进行了深入研究与探讨。
本文通过对《物权法》第 202 条立法旨趣和司法适用现状的分析与研究，从四个方面提出对我国抵押权司法适用的完善建议，希望能够提供更为多元化的关于抵押权完善方式的思考路径，为全面推进社会主义民主法治建设贡献力量。
关键词：抵押权，抵押权存续期间，诉讼时效，司法适用
Abstract
“The mortgagee shall exercise the mortgage within the action limitation of theprinciple creditor's right; those who do not exercise it, the people's court shall notprotect it.” This is from the Article 202 of the “Property Law” enacted in 2007. Itattracted extensive related researches and discussions applicable for various judicialissues after its introduction among academia and practitioners.
As to some practical difficulties encountered in the process of hearing cases byjudicial application such as the exercise term of the mortgage, and whether themortgage shall be eliminated beyond the action limitation of principle creditor'sright, the people's courts at all levels across the country have differentunderstandings and judgments. The legislatures are expected to put appropriatejudicial explanations to solve those controversial details.
In this thesis, four parts have been divided to discuss the problems of judicialapplication around the Article 202 in “Property Law” gradually: the first part sortsout the legislative attitudes and disputes of various counties and regions from theperspective of the current mortgagee's （security interest） legislative status and schoolstudy; the second part analyzes related legislation sayings and legislation applicationregulations of limitation, the security interest right in our country's present civil lawsystems; the third part mainly analyzes the problems encountered in the process ofthe application of Article 202 in “Property Law” by the judiciary of our country andstudies related problems such as the representative problem of “whether themortgage shall be extinguished in the expiration of the principle creditor's right aswell as the exercise term of mortgage, thus achieving the conclusion that somedetails of Article 202 in ”Property Law“ shall achieve perfect and judicialexplanations shall be introduced; the fourth part is about the consideration ofperfecting the judicial application of our country's security interest, and deepresearches as well as discussions have been conducted from four perspectivesincluding the legislation statement of ”Property Law“, the justice supporting systemof mortgage, the exercise limitation contract of mortgagee, and banking who takesthe rule of mortgagee.
In this thesis, suggestions on the perfection of our country's mortgage judicialapplication have been put forward from four aspects based on the analysis and studyof Article 202 legislative purport and judicial application status in ”Property Law“,which are expected to provide more diversified thinking ways on the perfection ofmortgage, thus contributing to the comprehensive promotion of socialist democracy.
Key words:Mortgage, the existence limitation of mortgage, action limitation, judicialapplication
