先予执行制度的立法完善

发布时间：2019-06-21 17:42

【摘要】：现在社会正在经历由事后的救济模式向事前的救济模式转变。而先予执行制度正是在这种转变中应运而生，它的目的在于保障当事人的合法权益，并且注重及时和有效保护。同时，该制度的有效实施将会抑制执行难问题。但是，从我国的实践来看，先予执行制度没有得到很到的实施，甚至有些地区法院的使用率不到1%。一部分原因是我国的公民对此制度不了解，即使符合了先予执行制度的条件，也不知道此制度，更没有申请先予执行。一部分原因是因为我国的理论界对该制度缺乏研究的热情，导致先予执行制度被学界所忽略。当然，究其根源，是因为我国的法律对先予执行制度规定的不健全，，导致了先予执行制度从性质上、立法定位上等出现了一系列的问题。在同时代的法制发达国家，与我国不同，它们从立法定位及性质上都作出了符合国情的规定，并且从具体制度上也做了细致的规定。因此在这些国家，该制度都得到了很好的实行。在借鉴其他发达国家的基础上，本文首先从性质上对先予执行制度进行了界定，即先予执行制度是一种特殊的保全程序，因为是一种程序，所以它包含了诉讼中的各个环节，而非制度。接下来对先予执行制度进行了立法定位，我国的先予执行制度在于及时且有效的保护当事人的合法权益，与以往的只注重“及时”不同，应当将“有效”也纳入进来，实现及时与有效的兼顾。在具体的制度设计上，我国的先予执行制度也存在着很多的问题，主要有先予执行制度的范围规定的过于狭窄、条件规定的过于严格、先予执行制度的程序规定的过于简陋，另外，在担保问题上先予执行制度也没有作出具体的规定，同时先予执行制度也缺乏合理的救济措施。针对以上问题，本文通过研究法制发达国家的类似相关制度，设计出适合于我国国情的规定。对于先予执行制度的范围做出了重新界定，即“因现实紧迫的危害，可能给当事人造成无法弥补的损害，而有暂时实现当事人诉讼请求之必要的所有案件”。对于适用先予执行制度的条件进行了宽松的规定，符合两点条件即可（1）申请人需证明所要实现的权利确实存在。（2）申请人有申请先予执行的必要性。在审理的程序中，应当抑制“本案化”倾向并在符合特定条件的情况下，增加调节结案的可能。在担保问题上，论述了两种情况，即提供担保和不提供担保的情况。对于先予执行制度出现错误时，当事人如何获得赔偿及赔偿的数额，本文也做了较详细的规定。
[Abstract]:Now the society is going through the transformation from the relief mode after the event to the relief mode in advance. The first execution system emerges as the times require in this kind of transformation, its purpose is to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and pay attention to timely and effective protection. At the same time, the effective implementation of the system will curb the implementation of difficult problems. However, from the practice of our country, the system of first enforcement has not been very implemented, and even the utilization rate of some district courts is less than 1%. Part of the reason is that the citizens of our country do not understand this system, even if they meet the conditions of the first execution system, they do not know the system, let alone apply for first enforcement. Part of the reason is that the theoretical circle of our country lacks the enthusiasm to study the system, which leads to the neglect of the system of prior execution by the academic circles. Of course, the root of the problem is that the law of our country is not perfect in the system of first execution, which leads to a series of problems in the nature and legislative orientation of the system of first execution. In the developed countries with legal system at the same time, different from our country, they have made provisions in accordance with the national conditions in terms of legislative orientation and nature, and have also made detailed provisions in terms of specific systems. Therefore, in these countries, the system has been well implemented. On the basis of drawing lessons from other developed countries, this paper first defines the system of first execution from the nature, that is, the system of first execution is a special preservation procedure, because it is a kind of procedure, so it contains all the links in the lawsuit, not the system. Next, the legislative orientation of the preemptive enforcement system is carried out. The preemptive enforcement system in our country lies in the timely and effective protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. Different from the previous only focus on "timely", "effective" should also be included to achieve timely and effective consideration. In the specific system design, there are also many problems in the system of first execution in our country, such as the scope of the system is too narrow, the conditions are too strict, the procedures of the system are too rudimentary, in addition, the system of first enforcement has not made specific provisions on the issue of guarantee, and the system of first execution is also lack of reasonable relief measures. In view of the above problems, this paper designs the regulations suitable for the national conditions of our country by studying the similar relevant systems in the developed countries. The scope of the prior execution system has been redefined, that is, "because of the urgent harm in reality, it may cause irreparable damage to the parties, and there are all the necessary cases to temporarily realize the litigant's claim". The conditions for the application of the pre-emptive enforcement system are lenient, and two conditions are met. (1) the applicant needs to prove that the rights to be realized do exist. (2) the applicant has the necessity of applying for first enforcement. In the trial procedure, the tendency of "case-based" should be suppressed and the possibility of regulating the closure of the case should be increased if the specific conditions are met. On the issue of security, this paper discusses two situations, namely, the provision of security and the non-provision of security. This paper also makes detailed provisions on how to obtain compensation and the amount of compensation when the prior execution system is wrong.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】