摘要/Abstract

《物权法》第202条规定，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。然而，法院不予保护，是在什么方面不予保护，不给予什么保护，却模糊不清。正是基于此，有必要对其含义予以探讨，得出明确的结论。“人民法院不予保护”的含义，是与抵押权存续期间的性质密切相关的，因此先探讨抵押权存续期间的性质，再由性质得出抵押权存续期间经过后，将会发生的法律后果，从而知道“人民法院不予保护”的真实含义。 抵押权存续期间的性质在我国存在着的三种争议，即诉讼时效说、除斥期间说、独立期间说。结合外国法的规

Article two hundred and two of the “Property law” stipulates that mortgage duration and the period of limitation of action of principal creditor’s rights over the same period of existence. During the period of limitation of action of principal creditor’s rights without the existence of the right of mortgage, The People’s Count shall not protect. However, it is not clear that in what aspects the laws shall not protect and what protection is not given. Therefore, there is a need to explore to draw definitive conclusions. The meaning of “The People’s Count shall not protect” is closely related to the mortgage term, so first we should discuss the nature of mortgage term, then know what will happen after the mortgage term, at last, we can comprehend the meaning of “The People’s Count shall not protect”. This article, first of all, explains that there are three disputes with regard to the nature of the mortgage term in our country, the limitation of claim, the scheduled period of claim, and the independent term of claim. Secondly, after combined with foreign law, obtains a result that “the independent period of claim” is more reasonable than others. Finally, by analyzing the legal consequences of the mortgage term, comes to the meaning of “The People’s Count shall not protect”.