民事执行和解研究

发布时间：2018-05-09 18:57

本文选题：执行和解 + 执行和解协议　；参考：《安徽大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：执行和解缓和了生效法律文书的严苛性,使债权人和债务人可以在强制执行中达到利益平衡,有利于及时履行、缓减冲突、节约成本。在实际执行工作中,对于执行和解及其法律效力的认知出现偏差,导致执行工作的混乱。为此,有必要加强对执行和解协议法律问题的研究,完善我国的执行和解制度,发挥其在民事执行中的应有作用。在民事执行和解中,申请执行人对经生效法律文书确认的实体权利和程序权利的处分,是当事人意思自治在执行程序中的体现。作为一种法律制度,民事执行和解的核心是当事人自愿处分自己的实体权利和程序权利,法院根据当事人意思自治原则中止或终结执行程序。我国现行的法律制度中并未赋予债务人异议之诉的权利,所以执行法院应当对当事人达成的和解协议是否实际履行进行审查。对于申请执行人由于欺诈、胁迫而达成和解协议的,仅仅赋予申请执行人申请恢复执行原生效法律文书的权利,缺乏对被执行人的惩罚和对申请执行人的有益保护。目前,日常执行实践中发现我国执行和解制度有以下问题：未赋予执行和解协议应有的法律效力；人民法院在执行和解过程中的地位和作用不明,人民法院不得参与执行和解协商的过程不符合执行实务中的现实情况；对于当事人达成的和解协议的成立的要件规定不明；人民法院在执行和解过程中对当事人达成的和解协议是否具有审查责任规定不明确等。以上不足,导致了执行和解在实际执行中并不能得到有效的应用,达不到期望的法律效果和社会效果,不仅浪费了有限的司法资源,更容易造成执行工作的混乱。针对上述现行执行和解制度的问题,应从下列方面加以改进与完善：一是赋予执行和解协议应有的法律效力。在定位上,应将执行和解视为当事人在执行中达成的民事契约,将其定位为私法行为。当事人受该行为的约束,一方当事人不按此协议履行,另一方当事人可要求按原生效法律文书执行,亦可根据和解协议的约定,要求对方承担更大的违约责任,从而加大了被执行人恶意签订和解协议的违约成本,保证了申请执行人应有的权利。二是明确人民法院在执行过程中的地位。执行法院应当告知双方当事人达成和解协议之后产生的相应法律后果；人民法院可以在充分考虑双方当事人利益的基础上,促成双方当事人就生效法律文书确定的义务在履行过程中达成一致。三是赋予人民法院对和解协议的审查权。执行和解不仅仅关系到申请执行人与被执行人的利益,也能够提高法院执行工作的效率,赋予法院对和解协议的审查权,可以审查当事人达成的和解协议是否有不符合法律规定的情形,防止有人恶意利用和解协议分割对方利益,同时也避免了因和解协议无效、可撤销等情形而导致执行过程的反复,节约司法资源。第四,赋予申请执行人依和解协议另行起诉的权利。现行法律规定一方当事人不履行和解协议的,人民法院可依当事人申请恢复对原生效法律文书的执行。而在执行过程中达成的和解协议,是申请执行人与被执行人形成的另一个新的债权债务关系,并不依附于原生效法律文书而成立,故其也具有民事合同的效力,申请执行人亦可以此为依据提起诉讼,从而给予被执行人以更为严厉的惩罚。五是建立债务人异议之诉制度。在某些较为复杂的情况下,人民法院审查和解协议是否实际履行存在一定困难,此时赋予被执行人起诉权,有助于保障申请执行人和被执行人的合法权益。
[Abstract]:The enforcement of reconciliation alleviated the severity of the effective legal documents, and made the creditors and debtors able to achieve a balance of interests in the enforcement of the compulsory execution. It was beneficial to the timely implementation, the mitigation of conflicts and the cost saving. In the actual implementation, there was a deviation in the recognition of the implementation of the reconciliation and its legal effect. We should strengthen the study of the legal issues of the implementation of the settlement agreement, improve our system of enforcement reconciliation, and give full play to its due role in civil execution.
In the civil execution reconciliation, the disposition of the entity rights and procedural rights confirmed by the executor is the embodiment of the party's autonomy in the execution procedure. As a legal system, the core of the civil enforcement of the settlement is the parties' voluntary disposition of their own substantive and procedural rights, and the court is based on the intention of the parties. The principle of autonomy terminate or terminate the execution procedure.
In the current legal system of China, the debtor has not been given the right to dissenting the debtor, so the Executive Court should examine the actual performance of the settlement agreement reached by the parties. For the applicant to achieve a conciliatory agreement due to fraud and coercion, the applicant should only give the applicant the right to apply for the resumption of the effective legal instrument. Profits, lack of punishment for the executor and beneficial protection for the applicant.
At present, in the daily practice, the following problems are found in the implementation of the settlement system in our country: no legal effect is given to the implementation of the settlement agreement; the status and role of the people's court in the process of the implementation of the reconciliation is unknown, and the process of the people's court may not participate in the implementation of the reconciliation negotiation is not in line with the actual situation in the practice of the implementation of the settlement; The provisions of the establishment of the settlement agreement are not clear; the people's court is not clear about whether the settlement agreement reached by the parties in the process of the settlement of the settlement is not clear. The above deficiencies lead to the implementation of the reconciliation in the actual implementation and can not be effectively applied, not to reach the desired legal effect and social effect, not only Waste of limited judicial resources is more likely to cause confusion in execution.
In view of the problems mentioned above, the following aspects should be improved and perfected from the following aspects: first, the legal effect should be given to the implementation of the settlement agreement. In the position of positioning, the enforcement of reconciliation should be regarded as a civil contract reached by the parties in the execution of the civil law. In accordance with this agreement, the other party may require the execution of the original legal instrument, and may also require the other party to undertake a greater liability for breach of contract according to the agreement of the conciliation agreement, thereby increasing the cost of breach of contract by the executor and ensuring the rights of the applicant to have. Two is to clarify the execution process of the people's court. The Executive Court shall inform the parties of the legal consequences arising from the settlement of the settlement agreement between the parties; the people's court may, on the basis of full consideration of the interests of both parties, contribute to the agreement between the parties' obligations determined by the effective legal instruments in the implementation process. Three is to give the people's court to the reconciliation Association. The implementation of reconciliation is not only related to the interests of the applicant and the executor, but also to the efficiency of the execution of the court. It gives the court the right to review the settlement agreement. It can examine whether the conciliation agreements reached by the parties are not in accordance with the law, and prevent the malicious use of the conciliatory agreement to divide the other party. At the same time, it also avoids the repetition of the execution process due to the invalidity and revocation of the settlement agreement, and saves the judicial resources. Fourth, the application of the applicant's right to prosecute in accordance with the settlement agreement. The current law stipulates that a party does not perform the settlement agreement, and the people's court may apply for the resumption of the original legal text on the basis of the party. The implementation of a book, and the settlement agreement reached in the process of execution, is another new debt debt relationship between the applicant and the executor, which is not attached to the original legal instrument, so it also has the effect of a civil contract. The applicant may also bring a lawsuit on this basis to give the executor more. Severe punishment. Five is the establishment of a system of debtor's objection. In some more complicated cases, it is difficult for the people's court to examine the actual performance of the settlement agreement. At this time, the right to prosecute is given to the executor, and it will help to protect the legal rights of the applicant and the executor.

【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.18

【参考文献】