指导案例2号的程序法理

发布时间：2018-02-13 12:34

本文关键词： 指导案例号和解协议不执行契约债务人异议之诉　出处：《法学》2013年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：最高人民法院发布的指导案例2号涉及二审中诉讼外和解协议与一审生效判决的效力关系问题。严仁群博士撰写的《二审和解后的法理逻辑:评第一批指导案例之"吴梅案"》认为指导案例2号存在全面的瑕疵和不足,法院对和解协议争执的程序处理更是存在根本性缺陷。严博士的上述研究混淆了立法论与解释论,立论和说理的逻辑自洽性不足,比较法分析不尽深入,错误判断了"吴梅案"中诉讼外和解的性质及其与确定判决的关系。"吴梅案"中和解在性质上属于比较法上的"不执行契约",绝非私法上的和解契约。从解释论的角度,指导案例2号是对我国民事司法实务中成型了的程序运作方式的确认,符合我国现行民事诉讼制度。从立法论的角度,则应该建立债务人异议之诉处理确定判决外和解与确定判决的关系。
[Abstract]:The guidance case No. 2 issued by the Supreme people's Court deals with the relationship between the settlement agreement outside the litigation in the second instance and the effective judgment of the first instance. Legal Logic after the settlement of the second instance written by Dr. Yan Renqun: comments on the first batch of guiding cases. Wu Mei's case > believes that guiding case No. 2 has comprehensive flaws and deficiencies. The court's procedural handling of the dispute over the settlement agreement is even more fundamentally flawed. Dr. Yan's above research confuses the logic of legislative theory and interpretation theory, the logical self-consistency of argument and reasoning, and the analysis of comparative law is not deep enough. The nature of settlement outside litigation and its relationship with the determination of judgment in Wu Mei case are wrongly judged. The settlement in Wu Mei case belongs to the "non-execution contract" in comparative law in nature, and is not a settlement contract in private law. The guiding case No. 2 is the confirmation of the procedural operation mode formed in the civil judicial practice of our country, which accords with the current civil litigation system of our country. Then we should establish the relationship between the settlement of the debtor's dissent and the determination of the judgment.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【基金】：北京市教育委员会北京市支持中央在京高校共建研究项目“民事诉讼法修改与多元化争议解决机制的完善”阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】