执行时效制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-07 07:07

本文选题：执行时效 + 强制执行请求权　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国民事诉讼法规定了“执行时效”制度，执行债权人必须在法定的申请执行期间内向人民法院提出申请，否则申请将被人民法院驳回,丧失请求强制执行的权利。然而执行债权人据以申请执行的生效法律文书所确定的乃是当事人的私权，与经国家法定程序确定之前的私权在本质上是同一的，而如债权等私权所生之请求权等受诉时效的约束，因此经生效法律文书确定的请求权也应有适用诉讼时效的余地。执行时效制度却在时间上约束当事人向人民法院申请执行的权利，从而阻碍了诉讼时效适用于执行依据确定的私权。造成这一问题的主要原因在于没有厘清执行时效针对的客体与执行时效的本质，，进而使得执行时效适用的程序也有违审执分离原则，不尽合理。本文首先通过对现行法律法规的梳理提出了执行时效制度的问题，进而分析执行时效的客体与本质，再借鉴域外相关制度提出改革的方法。本文全文包括引言，总共五部分，约二万八千多字。引言部分通过比较我国与其他大陆法系国家和地区持有民事执行依据的当事人向执行机关申请强制执行的差别，引出对我国执行时效制度进行研究的必要性。然后对该论题的研究现状进行了总结，最后指出了本文的创新之处。第一部分对我国现行执行时效制度相关的法律、司法解释进行了梳理，得出立法上存在冲突、执行时效的性质难以明确、适用的程序违背审执分离原则三大问题。第二部分分析了造成上述问题的核心原因——对执行时效的客体和本质认识不清，误用时效制度约束了当事人向人民法院申请强制执行这一公法权利，提出执行时效的客体实为执行依据所确定的当事人的私权请求权，执行时效的本质是前述私权请求权的诉讼时效（消灭时效）。第三部分考察了德国、日本、我国台湾地区等大陆法系国家和地区的相关制度，当事人向执行机关申请强执制行的权利不受时效制度约束，但经法律程序确定的请求权或权利与未确定的请求权或权利一体适用消灭时效，而执行程序中因消灭时效产生的争议则通过债务人异议之诉加以解决。第四部分在明确执行时效的客体和本质的基础上，对执行时效这一概念存在必要性提出了质疑，认为近期有存在的必要性，从长期来看应当统一于诉讼时效（消灭时效）制度；并认为现行审查制度和执行时效的争议解决制度不尽合理，有违审执分离原则，应当建立债务人异议之诉来处理执行程序中的实体争议；还对现行执行时效期间的长度的进了探讨。
[Abstract]:The civil procedure law of our country has stipulated the system of "execution limitation", the enforcement creditor must apply to the people's court within the legal period of application execution, otherwise the application will be rejected by the people's court, and the right of compulsory execution will be lost. However, the effective legal document on which the enforcement creditor applies for enforcement determines the private rights of the parties, which are essentially the same as the private rights prior to the determination of the legal procedures by the state. However, the right of claim arising from private rights, such as creditor's rights, is subject to the limitation of action, so the right of claim determined by the effective legal documents should also have room for applying the limitation of action. However, the system of limitation of execution restricts the parties' right to apply to the people's court for execution in time, thus hindering the limitation of action being applied to the private rights determined by the basis of execution. The main reason for this problem lies in the failure to clarify the object of execution limitation and the essence of execution limitation, which makes the procedure of enforcement prescription also violate the principle of separation of execution and execution, which is unreasonable. In this paper, the author first puts forward the problem of the enforcement prescription system by combing the current laws and regulations, and then analyzes the object and essence of the enforcement prescription system, and then puts forward the methods of reform based on the relevant system outside the country. The full text of this paper includes introduction, a total of five parts, about 28000 words. The introduction compares the differences between the parties who hold civil enforcement basis in our country and other civil law countries and regions, and leads to the necessity of studying the enforcement limitation system in our country. Then the research status of the thesis is summarized, and the innovation of this paper is pointed out. The first part of the current enforcement of the statute of limitations system related laws, judicial interpretation was combed, the conclusion is that there are conflicts in legislation, the nature of enforcement prescription is difficult to clarify, and the applicable procedure violates the principle of separation of trial and execution. The second part analyzes the core cause of the above problems-unclear understanding of the object and essence of the prescription of execution, and the misuse of the prescription system restricts the parties to apply to the people's court for enforcement of this public law right. The object of the limitation of execution is the right of private right of the parties determined by the basis of execution, and the essence of the limitation of execution is the limitation of action (extinguishing the limitation of limitation) of the said right of private right. The third part examines the relevant systems of civil law countries and regions such as Germany, Japan, Taiwan and so on. The right of the parties to apply to the executive organ for enforcement is not subject to the limitation system. But the right of claim or right determined by the legal procedure and the undetermined claim or right shall be applied to the extinguishing limitation period, while the disputes arising from the extinguishing limitation period in the enforcement procedure will be resolved by the action of the debtor's dissent. The fourth part, on the basis of clarifying the object and essence of the prescription of execution, questions the necessity of the concept of the limitation of execution, and holds that the necessity of existence in the near future should be unified in the system of limitation of action (extinguishing prescription) in the long run. It is considered that the current review system and the dispute settlement system of the enforcement prescription are unreasonable, which are contrary to the principle of separation of trial and execution, so the debtor's dissent action should be established to deal with the substantive dispute in the enforcement procedure. In addition, the length of the current limitation period is discussed.
【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】