摘要
时效中断事由的设置应该符合时效的正当理由。我国对于时效正当理由的传统认识深受苏联民法学说影响,是多元的时效正当理由。此种学说并未脱离萨维尼19世纪中期对时效正当性的认识。随着时效具体制度的发展,尤其是随着时效届满的效力从胜诉权消灭到抗辩权发生的变化、时效强制性的变化,时效正当理由和时效具体制度之间存在矛盾。为了去除此种矛盾,需在抗辩权发生主义的基础上,重构时效正当理由,时效制度是为了避免债务人免于不安定的法律地位,并在此基础上维护债之关系存续,体现了两种利益的协调。此两种利益在时效中断中,体现为权利行使型中断和债务承认型中断,在此基础上进一步重构中断事由。
The Setting of interruption of prescription should according to his justifications. Our traditional interpretation of the justifications is included by the Soviet Union civil law theory, and it is a pluralistic justification. This doctrine does not depart from Savignyg understanding of preseription in the mid - nineteenth century. With the development of specific institutions of prescription, especially the effect of the expiry of the prescription changed from mechanism of elimination of recover in lawsuit to the efficacious state of prescription action, the change of the permanent coercion, there is contradiction between the justification and the specific institutions of prescription. In order to remove such contradictions, it is necessary to reconstruct the justification, namely The system of prescription is to avoid the debtor from the unstable legal status, and on this basis to maintain the existence of debt. It embodies the coordination of these two interests. These two kinds of interests in the interruption of prescription, embody two types of interruptions： Claim of right and Recognition of debt. On the basis of these two types the interruptions should also be reconstructed.
出处
《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第4期126-136,共11页
Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
基金
中国博士后科学基金面上资助项目(2017M610314)
关键词
正当理由
抗辩权发生
时效中断
justification
the efficacious state of prescription action
interruption of prescription
