second, it is relatively simple to press * * *, that is, several people * * * own everything, and each person has a certain share, and they exercise their rights and perform their obligations according to the share.
1. Some people in * * * have the right to freely set the security interest in the expired part of * * * things, but they have no right to freely set the usufructuary right. The key is whether it will affect the actual use of things.
because the ownership of * * * can be clearly defined internally, but it is complete externally. No matter how much due part there is, all * * owners have the right to know the state of * * * as a complete object of ownership, and also have the right to supervise whether * * * is in normal use, and timely detect whether its due part is infringed. Therefore, * * * someone has the obligation to inform * * * that he * * * has a set burden on his due part after setting a security interest on his due part, otherwise he shall be liable for the losses caused by other * * * people exercising their rights. Because mortgage is a kind of security interest, the right to use the property is not transferred during the guarantee period, but the exchange value of the property is used as the guarantee of the debt. Even if the debtor fails to perform the debt, the ownership of the mortgaged property or any of its rights (including the right to use) will naturally transfer. If someone else performs or pays off, the mortgage will be destroyed. In fact, when the debtor fails to perform the debt, the mortgagee can't automatically occupy and use the collateral, but can only ask for auction and sale, and get priority in the price. It is not sufficient to say that * * should be partially mortgaged on the grounds of "actual use", which does not involve the key to security interests. No matter in theory or in judicial practice, the establishment of mortgage will not affect the normal use of collateral by all people. On the contrary, the mortgagee cannot "actually use" the collateral. * * * Some people can separate and give up their due part, which is a theoretical conclusion. Then * * * someone can of course * * * separate and transfer the expected exchange value to set a guarantee for the debt, so as to make full use of the real right and "promote the transfer of resources from the use of less value to the use of greater value", which is also in line with the principle of autonomy of will in civil law. Only when the debt can't be fulfilled and the expired part of the mortgage is sold, other people have the preemptive right. Under certain circumstances, other * * * people can also pay off debts on their behalf, thus eliminating the mortgage and maintaining the relationship between * * *.
2. The mortgage set over the due amount is an infringement, which is reasonable and clear, and its legal effect is to be determined. If it is ratified by others, it is valid. If others refuse, it shall be treated as an invalid civil act.
I have written so much, I don't know if you can understand it, but I really can't. Just look at the subtitles, give a good comment after a long time ~