我国司法拍卖制度研究

发布时间：2018-07-11 13:25

本文选题：司法拍卖 + 网络拍卖　；参考：《华东政法大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：司法拍卖作为强制执行程序中的重要变价方式,是我国执行制度中的重要组成部分。司法拍卖制度的执行情况对我国司法权威的树立、司法公信力的提升意义重大。但实践中,相关法律规则的缺失以及司法拍卖理论研究的不深入,进一步造成了司法拍卖不尽如人意的运行状况。委托拍卖方式不仅没有达到预想中加强监督法院拍卖行为的效果,反而使法院和拍卖机构联合寻租,司法腐败现象严重;加上委托拍卖方式下拍卖信息公开化程度不够、恶意串标、围标频繁,都使得我国司法拍卖制度面临重重困难,社会评价度不高。于是,呼吁改革司法拍卖制度的声音不断高涨。随着网络技术的发展,各地法院开始了司法拍卖改革的探索,通过多方主体参与司法拍卖来制衡司法拍卖各主体之间的关系,并利用网络技术对司法拍卖进行规制,形成了富有代表意义的上海公共资源拍卖中心模式、重庆联合产权交易所模式以及浙江淘宝司法拍卖模式,一场重振司法拍卖的大变革正在蓬勃发展中。实践中的变革也推动了立法做出相应的变革,2015年2月起施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》(以下简称《民诉法解释》)明确规定法院既可以委托拍卖,又可以自行拍卖,1既肯定了委托拍卖方式的必要性,又确认了浙江模式下的网络自行拍卖的合法性。2016年1月1日新施行的《关于加强和规范人民法院网络司法拍卖工作的意见》(以下简称《网络司法拍卖意见》)更是要求司法拍卖全面推行网上拍卖的方式,2并再次重申了委托拍卖的原则,3即网上拍卖方式应全面运用于委托拍卖和自行拍卖。在频繁的变革措施下,我国司法拍卖今后将走向何方?这是我们需要研究的问题。本文通过对司法拍卖改革浪潮下的多种司法拍卖模式进行研究,在梳理我国司法拍卖制度演变历程的基础上,分析目前我国司法拍卖制度困境的症结,并结合当前司法现状与实证考察对我国司法拍卖出现的多种拍卖模式做了细致的分析与对比,最后从推进委托拍卖与自行拍卖共同发展、完善人民法院诉讼资产网平台、完善司法拍卖规则、强化司法拍卖监督、提高司法拍卖成交率等角度提出笔者对深化我国司法拍卖改革的相关思索,为今后我国司法拍卖制度的发展和模式的选择提供路径指导。第一部分为司法拍卖制度的概述。首先,对司法拍卖的定义进行明晰,其次,对司法拍卖的性质进行探讨,分析关于司法拍卖性质的各个学说,并在此基础上提出笔者的认识。最后,梳理司法拍卖的类型,为之后设计司法拍卖的不同模式做铺垫。第二部分介绍我国司法拍卖制度的演变以及分析我国司法拍卖制度在实践中面临的困境和原因。从我国司法拍卖的历史发展和实践历程角度回顾该制度的演变过程,并阐述了司法拍卖制度在我国司法实践中的现状和困境,分析了造成现状的症结。第三部分为我国司法拍卖模式的实证分析,对上海公共资源拍卖中心模式、重庆联合产权交易所模式、浙江淘宝司法拍卖模式的优势和缺陷进行分析,并结合实地考察,阐述这三个模式实施的实际效果。在此基础上,第四部分对这三个模式进行比较研究,探讨了这三大模式的共同点和本质差异,并深入分析了这三个模式共同反映的问题,为第五部分完善我国司法拍卖相关建议的提出作铺垫。第五部分为完善我国司法拍卖制度的相关思考,在对多种模式分析对比的基础上,从推进委托拍卖与自行拍卖共同发展、完善人民法院诉讼资产网平台、完善司法拍卖规则、强化司法拍卖监督、提高司法拍卖成交率角度对我国司法拍卖制度的完善提出一些建议,为重振司法拍卖公信力贡献绵薄之力。
[Abstract]:The judicial auction is an important part of the enforcement procedure, which is an important part of our country's execution system. The implementation of the judicial auction system is of great significance to the establishment of our judicial authority and the promotion of judicial credibility. However, in practice, the lack of relevant legal rules and the lack of in-depth research on the theory of judicial auction are in depth. The auction has not only achieved the effect of strengthening the auction of the court in anticipation, but also makes the courts and auctioneer joint rent-seeking, the judicial corruption is serious, and the extent of the public auction is not enough, the malicious collusion is not enough, and the auction is frequent. As the system of judicial auction in China faces many difficulties and the social evaluation is not high, the voice of the call for the reform of the system of judicial auction is rising constantly. With the development of network technology, the courts of various places have begun to explore the reform of the judicial auction, and take part in the judicial auction to check the relationship between the various subjects of the judicial auction and make use of it. The network technology regulates the judicial auction, and forms a representative model of the Shanghai public resource auction center, the Chongqing joint property exchange model and the Zhejiang Taobao judicial auction model, and a great reform of the judicial auction is booming. The reform in practice has also promoted the corresponding changes in the legislation, 2015 The interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law) clearly stipulates that the court can both entrust an auction and auction it on its own. 1 not only affirms the necessity of the way of auction, but also recognised the legitimacy of the network auction under the Zhejiang model. The comments on strengthening and standardizing the network judicial auction of the people's court in January 1st (hereinafter referred to as < network judicial auction opinion >), which was implemented in January 1st,.2016 (hereinafter referred to as < network judicial auction opinion >) are more required for the full implementation of online auctions by judicial auction. 2 and reaffirming the principle of entrustment auction again, 3 that is, the online auction should be fully used for auction and self auction. Under the frequent change measures, where will our country's judicial auction be going? This is the question we need to study. This paper studies a variety of judicial auction models under the wave of judicial auction reform. On the basis of combing the evolution process of China's judicial auction system, this paper analyzes the crux of the plight of our judicial auction system. Combined with the current judicial status and empirical investigation, this paper makes a detailed analysis and comparison of various auction modes that appear in China's judicial auction, and finally from promoting the joint development of the entrust auction and the self auction, perfecting the platform of the people's court's litigation asset network, perfecting the judicial auction rules, strengthening the supervision of the judicial auction, and improving the judicial auction transaction rate. The author puts forward some thoughts on deepening the reform of judicial auction in China and provides a path guidance for the development of our judicial auction system and the choice of the mode. The first part is an overview of the judicial auction system. First, the definition of the judicial auction is clarified. Secondly, the nature of the judicial auction is discussed, and the judicial auction is analyzed. The second part introduces the evolution of China's judicial auction system and the analysis of the difficulties and reasons for the judicial auction system in our country. The evolution process of the system is reviewed in the perspective of historical development and practice, and the status and difficulties of the judicial auction system in the judicial practice in China are expounded. The crux of the present situation is analyzed. The third part is an empirical analysis of the mode of judicial auction in China, the mode of Shanghai public resource auction center and the joint property exchange model of Chongqing, The advantages and defects of the Zhejiang Taobao judicial auction model are analyzed, and the actual effects of the three models are expounded in the light of field investigation. On this basis, the fourth part makes a comparative study of the three models, discusses the common points and essential differences of the three models, and analyzes the problems reflected jointly by the three models. The fifth part is the paving for improving our country's judicial auction related proposals. The fifth part is to improve our judicial auction system. On the basis of the analysis and comparison of various models, we should promote the joint development of the commissioned auction and the self auction, perfect the platform of the people's court litigation asset network, perfect the judicial auction rules and strengthen the Department. The supervision of the law auction and the improvement of the rate of judicial auction have made some suggestions on the perfection of the judicial auction system in China, and contribute to the efforts to revive the credibility of the judicial auction.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】