初探债权执行程序的理论基

发布时间：2018-01-21 01:17

本文关键词： 债权执行代位执行权利外观代位权收取诉讼　出处：《现代法学》2017年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：债权执行的正当性来自于债务人用于一般担保的责任财产,执行标的并非债权标的物,而是指向给付的债权。执行名义缺失下的债权执行不仅未能从诉讼法理论中获得正当化依据,而且执行效率原则由于悖离权利外观也颇受怀疑。有关执行债务人对第三人的债权执行程序,可分为扣押程序(冻结裁定)与变价程序(履行通知)。后者虽使执行债权人享有收取债权的权能,却不能启动对第三人的执行程序。若第三人拒绝向执行债权人履行债务,后者虽可借助《合同法》第73条代位权来提起收取诉讼,但两者之目的、构成要件、法律效果都有着显著的区别,应根据制度目的分别建构。
[Abstract]:The legitimacy of the execution of creditor's rights comes from the debtor's liability property which is used for general security, and the subject matter of execution is not the subject matter of creditor's rights. Instead, it points to the creditor's rights paid. The execution of the creditor's rights under the lack of the name of execution has not only failed to obtain the justification basis from the procedural law theory. Moreover, the principle of enforcement efficiency is also in doubt because of the departure from the appearance of the right. The enforcement procedure of the debtor's claim against the third party is related to the enforcement of the debtor's rights against third parties. It can be divided into sequestration proceedings (freezing decisions) and valorem procedures (notice of performance). The latter gives enforcement creditors the right to receive claims. If the third party refuses to perform the debt to the enforcing creditor, the latter can take action by virtue of the subrogation of Article 73 of the contract Law, but the purpose of both is the constitutive elements. There are significant differences in the legal effects, which should be constructed separately according to the purpose of the system.
【作者单位】：上海交通大学凯原法学院;
【分类号】：D925.1
【正文快照】： 引言当享有请求给付金钱的债权人获得对债务人的胜诉判决后,可能发现后者并无可供执行的财产,或其财产难以变现,却享有对第三人的到期债权。此时,债权人既可根据《合同法》第73条向第三人提起代位权诉讼,也可启动债务人对第三人的债权强制执行程序,以获得债权清偿。前者需要

【相似文献】