【裁判要旨】我国法律上一直未明确承认添附制度,司法实践中,法院常以侵权责任取代添附制度,从而造成一般社会认知水平普遍感觉的不公平不效率。该案系典型的由添附引发的财产损害赔偿纠纷,一、二审法官分别运用侵权责任、添附制度进行处理,产生了截然不同的社会效果。二审法官在法无明确规定添附制度的情况下,采取迂回方式,通过做当事人工作,使其放弃恢复原状之侵权诉请,并运用添附制度原理对案件进行了改判。 【Key Points of Judgment】 In our country, the system of attachment has not been explicitly recognized in the law. In judicial practice, courts often replace the system of attachment by tort liability, resulting in the unfair and inefficient general feeling of social cognition. This case is a typical case of property damage compensation disputes triggered by the attachment. The first and second instance trial judges respectively used the tort liability and attachment system to deal with them, resulting in totally different social effects. In the absence of a clear prescription for the attachment system, the second instance judge took a roundabout way of doing the work of the parties and gave up the infringement petition for the restoration of the status quo antecedent, and the case was adjudicated on the basis of the Addition System.