我国督促程序的现状及完善对策研究

发布时间：2018-11-26 10:15

【摘要】：我国1991年的《民事诉讼法》规定了督促程序,但是在具体实践中,督促程序的利用率和生效率都很低,不但未能发挥督促程序应有的诉讼功能,程序空置成为摆设,也使大量民事债权债务纠纷流入普通诉讼程序,造成司法资源分配不合理。2013年新《民事诉讼法》对督促程序的具体程序设置进行了完善：规定了督促程序的适用范围,很大程度上增加了督促程序被使用的可能性；明确法院应当审查债务人提出的支付令异议是否成立,最大限度的减少支付令因债务人滥用异议权而失效的可能性；规定支付令异议成立的,督促程序终结,纠纷自动转入诉讼程序,解决了督促程序和诉讼程序的衔接问题,充分赋予了债权人处分权。此次对督促程序的修改无疑是我国民事诉讼立法对督促程序实践困境一次强劲有力的回应,从中可以看出立法者希望我国督促程序走出实践困境的强烈意愿和建设中国特色社会主义法治国家的迫切需要。本文除第五章结语外共分为四个章节,第一章界定了督促程序的内涵,从督促程序的适用范围、特点、具体流程及设置目的各角度定义督促程序；分析了督促程序的属性,通过对国内学术界三种代表性观点进行简单点评,从确立了笔者的观点一-督促程序是略式诉讼程序,并从非诉程序的特点和督促程序自身特点正反两个角度论证此观点；并简单分析了督促程序设计的法律意义。第二章笔者选取了德国、法国、日本和台湾等国家和地区为代表,描述了督促程序在这些国家和地区的立法概况和适用现状,并进行优缺点对比分析。第三章,笔者对我国督促程序立法状况和适用现状进行分析,首先以宏观的视角对我国整个督促程序立法体系进行评价,接着详细描述了我国督促程序运作实效现状,利用率、生效率低下,恶意诉讼潜入。最后笔者分别从督促程序启动与运转、外部环境两个方面深入剖析了造成督促程序实践中困境的原因。第四章,笔者针对第三章所分析的督促程序所面临的困境,在具体规则实施方面提出对督促程序进行规制和完善的建议,以期最大程度上发挥督促程序的优势,优化司法资源配置。
[Abstract]:The "Civil procedure Law" of 1991 in our country stipulated the supervision procedure, but in the concrete practice, the utilization rate and the productivity efficiency of the supervision procedure were very low, not only failed to give full play to the lawsuit function due to the supervision procedure, but the procedure was left vacant. It also causes a large number of disputes over civil creditor's rights and debts to flow into ordinary litigation procedures, resulting in unreasonable distribution of judicial resources. In 2013, the new Civil procedure Law has perfected the specific procedure setting of the supervision procedure: it has stipulated the scope of application of the supervision procedure. (B) increased likelihood of the use of supervisory procedures to a large extent; It is clear that the court should examine whether the dissent of payment order put forward by the debtor is established, and minimize the possibility that the payment order will be invalidated by the debtor's abuse of the right of dissent; If the dissent of payment order is established, the supervision procedure ends and the dispute is automatically transferred to the litigation procedure, which solves the problem of the connection between the supervision procedure and the litigation procedure, and gives the creditor the right of disposition. The revision of the supervision procedure is undoubtedly a strong and effective response to the difficulties in the practice of the supervision procedure in China's civil litigation legislation. It can be seen that the legislators hope that our country will urge the procedure out of the practical dilemma and the urgent need to build a socialist country ruled by law with Chinese characteristics. In addition to the conclusion of the fifth chapter, this paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter defines the content of the supervision procedure, from the perspective of the scope of application, characteristics, specific process and setting purpose of the supervision procedure. This paper analyzes the attributes of the supervision procedure, through a simple review of the three representative views of the domestic academic circles, establishes the author's point of view that the supervision procedure is a slightly litigation procedure. And from the characteristics of non-litigation procedures and supervision procedures of their own characteristics of positive and negative two angles to demonstrate this view; And simply analyzes the legal significance of supervising and urging program design. In the second chapter, the author chooses Germany, France, Japan and Taiwan as the representatives, describes the general situation of legislation and application of the supervision procedure in these countries and regions, and makes a comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages. In the third chapter, the author analyzes the legislation status and application status of the supervision procedure in our country. Firstly, the author evaluates the legislation system of the supervision procedure from a macro perspective, and then describes in detail the actual operation and utilization rate of the supervision procedure in our country. Inefficiency, malicious litigation sneaked in. Finally, the author analyzes the causes of the dilemma in the practice of supervision procedure from two aspects: starting and running of supervision procedure and external environment. In the fourth chapter, the author puts forward some suggestions on how to regulate and perfect the supervision procedure in the implementation of specific rules in order to give full play to the advantages of the supervision procedure in view of the difficulties faced by the supervision procedure analyzed in the third chapter. Optimize the allocation of judicial resources.
【学位授予单位】：南京财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】