民事判决执行前和解协议研究

发布时间：2018-04-17 08:24

本文选题：执行前和解协议 + 不执行契约　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：执行前和解协议是当事人在生效判决作出后，申请强制执行前达成的合意。在我国极力提倡调解、和解的司法背景下，这类和解协议大量出现并不断增加。我国现对该类协议未有明确立法规定，理论界与实务界对其性质及其与原判决的关系亦尚未统一认识。现虽有部分零碎的探索，但我国在立法上始终未对和解协议与原判决的关系作出系统回应。本文运用分析、比较和理论联系实际的研究方法论证执行前和解协议的性质，以把握该类和解协议与原判决的静态关系；并在借鉴域外考察和总结我国现有制度的基础上，以期完善因执行前和解协议发生争议时的处理机制。最后重点强调应当在贯彻强制执行保障债权人权利的同时，赋予债务人必要的救济途径。全文共三万余字，从下述五个部分对执行前和解协议进行研究：第一部分：问题的提出。通过两个实务案例的引入和分析，提出执行前和解协议这一主题，以及实务界在处理该类和解协议时遇到的困惑。结合理论上关于该类和解协议的研究成果综述，笔者提出三个问题，即执行前和解协议的性质如何界定？执行前和解协议与原确定判决效力的关系如何把握？若一方当事人违反执行前和解协议，则另一方应如何有效救济？以展开本文的论述。第二部分：执行前和解协议的定性及其意义。笔者从现有学者对于执行前和解协议的定义，结合该类和解协议的基本特征，对其进行定义并与相关概念区分。继而对学术界现有的学说争议拨乱反正，将该类和解协议定性为不执行契约，并从民事诉讼制度的目的、强制执行程序的功能和意思自治原则出发，论证本文采“不执行契约”定性的正确性，以及研究执行前和解协议的意义。第三部分：对执行前和解协议处理方式的域外考察。域外国家和地区主要借鉴德国、日本和我国台湾地区，它们从保护债务人的角度出发，在债权人启动强制执行程序后，赋予债务人以执行前和解协议异议事由提起异议之诉的方式，予以救济。第四部分：对执行前和解协议处理方式的现状研究。因执行前和解协议本质上是一种不执行契约，，故其与原判决的效力是共存的，互不影响。当债权人和债务人因该类和解协议发生争议时，我国缺少对债务人的必要救济。第五部分：执行前和解制度的构建设想。借鉴域外考察的启示，并结合我国现行对执行前和解协议的处理方式，笔者建议从债权人和债务人两个角度对执行前和解制度进行构建，一方面参照执行和解协议以立法形式明确其效力，另一方面借鉴域外的债务人异议之诉制度，予以具体构建。
[Abstract]:The pre-enforcement settlement agreement is an agreement reached before the parties apply for enforcement after the effective judgment.In the judicial background of mediation and reconciliation, these kinds of settlement agreements appear in large numbers and continue to increase.At present, there is no clear legislation on this kind of agreement, and the theoretical and practical circles have not yet unified understanding of its nature and its relationship with the original judgment.Although there are some piecemeal explorations, our legislation has not made a systematic response to the relationship between the settlement agreement and the original judgment.This paper uses the methods of analysis, comparison and theory combined with practice to prove the nature of the pre-implementation settlement agreement in order to grasp the static relationship between this kind of settlement agreement and the original judgment, and on the basis of studying and summing up the existing system of our country for reference.In order to improve the settlement agreement before the implementation of disputes arising from the settlement mechanism.Finally, the author emphasizes that the debtor should be given the necessary remedy while enforcing and protecting the creditor's rights.The full text consists of more than 30,000 words and studies the pre-implementation settlement agreement from the following five parts:The first part: the raising of the question.Through the introduction and analysis of two practical cases, this paper puts forward the subject of pre-implementation settlement agreement and the confusion encountered by the practical circle in dealing with this kind of settlement agreement.Combined with the theoretical research on this kind of settlement agreement, the author puts forward three questions: how to define the nature of the pre-implementation settlement agreement?How to grasp the relationship between the pre-implementation settlement agreement and the validity of the original decision?If one of the parties violates the pre-enforcement settlement agreement, how can the other party provide effective relief?In order to expand the discussion of this article.The second part: the nature and significance of the pre-implementation settlement agreement.Based on the definition of pre-implementation settlement agreement and the basic characteristics of this kind of settlement agreement, the author defines it and distinguishes it from the relevant concepts.Then the existing academic theory dispute is corrected, this kind of settlement agreement is characterized as non-execution contract, and from the purpose of the civil litigation system, the principle of the function and autonomy of the compulsory execution procedure is set out.This paper demonstrates the validity of the nature of non-execution contract and the significance of pre-implementation settlement agreement.The third part: the outside-country investigation of the pre-implementation settlement agreement.Foreign countries and regions mainly draw lessons from Germany, Japan and Taiwan. From the perspective of debtor protection, they set out after creditors started enforcement proceedings.To grant the debtor relief by suing the cause of dissent before the execution of the settlement agreement.The fourth part: the present situation of settlement agreement before implementation.Because the pre-execution settlement agreement is essentially a non-execution contract, it is coexisting with the original judgment and does not affect each other.When the creditor and debtor dispute over this kind of settlement agreement, our country lacks the necessary relief to the debtor.The fifth part: the conciliatory system before implementation.Referring to the enlightenment of the overseas investigation, and combining the current way of dealing with the pre-implementation settlement agreement in our country, the author suggests that the pre-enforcement settlement system should be constructed from the perspective of creditors and debtors.On the one hand, referring to the implementation of the settlement agreement in the form of legislation to clarify its effectiveness, on the other hand, to draw lessons from the extraterritorial debtor dissent action system, to be specifically constructed.
【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】