关于债权人在满足何种要件时可留置他人之物,在我国现行法律体系下,因涉及新旧法律之间的衔接,一直为理论上的一大难题。就学说而言,主要存在留置权善意取得说以及目的性扩张债务人动产说两条解释路径,二者在方法论的定位以及法律效果上皆有一定的差异。考虑到留置权作为法定物权并不符合善意取得的构成要件,且从法价值判断而言毋需将债权人明知物为第三人所有以及债权人留置盗赃物的情形排除出留置权的适用范畴,故目的性扩张债务人动产为债务人占有之动产于我国法下更为妥适。 With regard to what kind of elements creditors can leave behind others, under the current legal system in our country, it has always been a major theoretical problem because of the connection between the old and the new laws. As far as doctrine is concerned, there are two main explanations for the acquisition of the lien in good faith and the intentional expansion of the movables of the debtor. Both of them have certain differences in methodology and legal effect. Considering that the lien as statutory real right does not accord with the components of bona fide acquisition and it is not necessary to judge the legal value from the fact that the obligee knows the thing as the third party and the creditor loses the stolen property, Therefore, it is more appropriate under our law to intentionally expand movable personal property owned by the debtor for the debtor’s possession.