二审中民事诉讼和解协议效力问题研究
发布时间：2019-06-13 17:54
【摘要】：在二审审理过程中,双方当事人本着意思自治的精神,经过平等协商共同达成诉讼和解协议,上诉方撤回上诉二审程序终结。此后若一方当事人不履行或者不完全履行和解协议,另一方当事人申请强制执行,那么此时的执行依据应为一审判决还是二审中达成和解协议,理论界和实务界议论纷纷,其分歧的根源乃是对诉讼和解性质和效力的不同界定。最高人民法院2号指导性案例的裁判要点对此问题从立法的角度给以说明,在实践中具有重要意义。 本文以研究最高人民法院2号指导性案例为视角,旨在充分分析该指导性案例的基础之上,探讨诉讼和解的性质与效力问题,从纠纷解决的过程为切入点支持“一行为两性质说”,承认和解协议同时具有私法行为和诉讼行为两方面的性质,并且从解决纠纷的根本目的重构诉讼和解协议诉讼法上的效力。以“司法确认”为出发点,从当事人申请、法官释名、司法审查入手,建立诉讼和解的“公法方案”解决路径,从而找到二审中达成诉讼和解得不到履行的解决办法,为解决诉讼和解中的问题提出可行性立法建议,从而在实践中使诉讼和解的功能最大化。
[Abstract]:In the process of second instance, in the spirit of autonomy of will, the parties reached an agreement on litigation settlement through equal consultation, and the appellant withdrew the procedure of second instance of appeal. After that, if one party fails to perform the settlement agreement or does not fully perform the settlement agreement, and the other party applies for enforcement, then the enforcement basis should be the settlement agreement reached in the first instance judgment or the second instance. The theoretical and practical circles have discussed one after another, and the root of their differences is the different definition of the nature and effectiveness of the litigation settlement. The main points of the Supreme people's Court No. 2 guiding case explain this problem from the legislative point of view, which is of great significance in practice. From the perspective of studying the No. 2 guiding case of the Supreme people's Court, this paper aims to fully analyze the guiding case, explore the nature and effectiveness of litigation settlement, support the theory of "one behavior and two nature" from the point of view of the process of dispute settlement, and recognize that the settlement agreement has the nature of both private law behavior and litigation behavior. And reconstruct the effectiveness of the procedural law of litigation settlement agreement from the fundamental purpose of dispute resolution. Based on the "judicial confirmation", starting with the application of the parties, the interpretation of the judge and the judicial review, this paper establishes the solution of the "public law scheme" of litigation settlement, so as to find the solution that the litigation settlement can not be fulfilled in the second instance, and puts forward some feasible legislative suggestions for solving the problems in the litigation settlement, so as to maximize the function of the litigation settlement in practice.
【学位授予单位】：华北电力大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1
本文编号：2498703
[Abstract]:In the process of second instance, in the spirit of autonomy of will, the parties reached an agreement on litigation settlement through equal consultation, and the appellant withdrew the procedure of second instance of appeal. After that, if one party fails to perform the settlement agreement or does not fully perform the settlement agreement, and the other party applies for enforcement, then the enforcement basis should be the settlement agreement reached in the first instance judgment or the second instance. The theoretical and practical circles have discussed one after another, and the root of their differences is the different definition of the nature and effectiveness of the litigation settlement. The main points of the Supreme people's Court No. 2 guiding case explain this problem from the legislative point of view, which is of great significance in practice. From the perspective of studying the No. 2 guiding case of the Supreme people's Court, this paper aims to fully analyze the guiding case, explore the nature and effectiveness of litigation settlement, support the theory of "one behavior and two nature" from the point of view of the process of dispute settlement, and recognize that the settlement agreement has the nature of both private law behavior and litigation behavior. And reconstruct the effectiveness of the procedural law of litigation settlement agreement from the fundamental purpose of dispute resolution. Based on the "judicial confirmation", starting with the application of the parties, the interpretation of the judge and the judicial review, this paper establishes the solution of the "public law scheme" of litigation settlement, so as to find the solution that the litigation settlement can not be fulfilled in the second instance, and puts forward some feasible legislative suggestions for solving the problems in the litigation settlement, so as to maximize the function of the litigation settlement in practice.
【学位授予单位】：华北电力大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 徐继军;;论执行和解协议的效力与性质[J];法律适用;2006年09期
2 郭玉军;孙敏洁;;美国诉讼和解与中国法院调解之比较研究[J];法学评论;2006年02期
3 何国强;;论民事诉讼二审中和解协议的性质——最高人民法院2号指导性案例评析[J];北方法学;2012年04期
4 吴俊;;指导案例2号的程序法理[J];法学;2013年01期
5 刘烁玲;;我国民事诉讼和解制度存在的问题及其完善[J];江西社会科学;2009年03期
6 鲍玉洁;;浅议民事诉讼和解制度[J];科教导刊(中旬刊);2010年08期
7 章武生,吴泽勇;论诉讼和解[J];法学研究;1998年02期
8 吕辉;;论我国和解协议的效力重构[J];学理论;2010年31期
9 王亚新;;一审判决效力与二审中的诉讼外和解协议——最高人民法院公布的2号指导案例评析[J];法学研究;2012年04期
10 李瑾;;民事诉讼和解制度的比较分析研究[J];齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2007年05期
，本文编号：2498703
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2498703.html
