民事执行中的债务人异议之诉研究

发布时间：2018-02-04 08:41

本文关键词： 执行救济债务人异议之诉诉讼性质　出处：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：债务人异议之诉是执行救济制度中实体救济的一种方式。在执行程序中，当债务人拥有抗辩债权人实体权利的异议事由时，债务人能够提起异议之诉，进行权利救济。2012年进行了《民事诉讼法》的修改，执行部分的修改是一大亮点，不过我国并没有设立债务人异议之诉制度。文章以民事执行中的债务人异议之诉为研究主题，在收集、介绍和分析现有资料的基础上，阐释了对债务人异议之诉的基本理论认识，分析了设立债务人异议之诉的可行性，并对如何构建债务人异议之诉进行了研讨。本文除引言和结语外，正文有四个部分，共计约27000余字：第一部分是对债务人异议之诉的基本理论分析。在学界对债务人异议之诉概念不同认识的基础上，本文认为债务人异议之诉是债务人为了变更执行名义的执行力，实现终止执行程序目的的诉讼；同时债务人异议之诉符合民事诉讼法中的程序正义和实体正义、诉讼公正和效率的价值观；最后针对学者们对债务人异议之诉诉讼性质到底是传统形成之诉、确认之诉、给付之诉还是新型的救济之诉、命令之诉的争议，认为诉讼性质应当是变更之诉；在形成之诉诉讼性质的基础上，本文认为，应当采纳诉讼标的的实体法说，同时在程序上通过保障当事人的选择权、强调法官的阐明义务来确定债务人异议之诉的诉讼标的，以此来解决实体法说的缺陷。第二部分是债务人异议之诉的立法比较。执行程序开始之前，德国和日本立法规定要求执行机关赋予债权人“执行签证”，因此，债务人可以对“执行签证”和债权人的执行请求权分别提起异议之诉；而我国台湾地区没有对债务人异议之诉制度进行区分，而是概括规定当债务人拥有消灭或妨碍债权人请求的实体法律事由时，可以在强制执行程序终结前，提起异议之诉；不过，都认为债务人异议之诉是当事人之间实体权利义务的争议。第三部分是我国确定债务人异议之诉的可行性分析。1991年《民事诉讼法》，混淆了执行异议和异议之诉的概念，，《民事诉讼法》经过两次修改，执行程序中设立了程序上的救济方式和实体上的救济方式，不过在执行难、债权人中心主义的执行程序观和过度依靠审判监督程序的原因下，我国并没有建立债务人异议之诉制度；因而，建立债务人异议之诉制度具有完善执行救济制度二元结构和充分发挥再审程序作用的现实必要性。第四部分是我国债务人异议之诉的构建。从执行制度的理念出发，我国建立债务人异议之诉应当遵循效率优先和诚实信用原则；同时，应当从当事人、异议事由及程序设置等方面对我国所确定债务人异议之诉制度进行明确规范。
[Abstract]:In the enforcement procedure, when the debtor has the objection reason of the entity right of the defense creditor, the debtor can bring the objection action. In 2012, the amendment of the Civil procedure Law was carried out, and the amendment of the executive part was a bright spot. However, our country has not set up the system of dissenting action of debtor. This article takes the dissenting action of debtor in civil execution as the research topic, on the basis of collecting, introducing and analyzing the existing information. This paper expounds the basic theoretical understanding of the dissenting action of the debtor, analyzes the feasibility of setting up the dissenting action of the debtor, and discusses how to construct the dissenting action of the debtor. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text has four parts, a total of about 27000 words: The first part is the basic theoretical analysis of debtor dissent action, on the basis of different understanding of the concept of debtor dissent action in academic circles. This paper holds that the dissenting action of the debtor is the action of the debtor in order to change the execution power of the execution and realize the purpose of terminating the execution procedure. At the same time, the debtor dissent suit accords with the values of procedural justice and substantive justice, litigation justice and efficiency in the civil procedure law; Finally, in view of the dispute that the lawsuit nature of dissent to debtor is the traditional form action, the confirmation action, the payment action or the new relief action and the order action, the author thinks that the nature of the lawsuit should be the action of change; On the basis of forming the nature of litigation, this paper holds that the substantive law of the subject matter of litigation should be adopted, and the right of choice of the parties should be protected through the procedure at the same time. It emphasizes the obligation of the judge to determine the object of action of the debtor's dissenting action, so as to solve the defects of the substantive law theory. The second part is the legislative comparison of the debtor's dissenting action. Prior to the commencement of enforcement proceedings, German and Japanese legislation required the enforcement authorities to grant creditors "enforcement visas", so. The debtor may challenge the "execution visa" and the creditor's right to enforce separately; However, Taiwan does not distinguish the system of dissenting action of debtor, but generalizes that when the debtor has the substantive legal cause of extinguishing or obstructing the creditor's request, it can be concluded before the end of the enforcement procedure. Filing a complaint of objection; However, it is believed that the debtor's dissent action is a dispute between the parties' substantive rights and obligations. The third part is the feasibility analysis of determining the dissent action of debtor in our country. In 1991, the Civil procedure Law confused the concept of executive objection and dissent action, and the Civil procedure Law was amended twice. There are procedural remedies and substantive remedies in the enforcement procedure, but due to the difficulty of execution, the creditor centrism view of execution procedure and the excessive reliance on the trial supervision procedure. China has not established the system of debtor dissent action; Therefore, it is necessary to perfect the dual structure of execution relief system and give full play to the role of retrial procedure. The 4th part is the construction of the dissent action of the debtor in our country. From the idea of the execution system, the principle of efficiency priority and good faith should be followed in establishing the dissent action of the debtor in our country. At the same time, we should regulate the system of dissenting action of debtor in our country from the aspects of parties, reasons of dissent and procedure.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.18

【参考文献】