论破产启动中法院执行案件移送破产审查的规制

发布时间：2018-06-26 14:06

本文选题：执转破程序 + 破产启动　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：2015年2月,最高人民法院颁布的《关于适用中华人民共和国民事诉讼法的解释》(以下简称《民诉法解释》),我国首次正式制定执行案件移送破产审查(以下简称执转破程序)的规制。2017年2月,最高人民法院《关于执行案件移送破产审查若干问题的指导意见》(以下简称《指导意见》),更为明确、详细的规定了执行向破产程序的转化。法院执转破程序的设立,从市场主体来看,企业法人即可以得到救治的机会,也可以通过法定程序合法的退出市场;从司法制度来看,有利于缓解执行难和破产启动难的现实问题;从利益保护来看,有利于公平保护债权人、债务人等各方主体的合法权益,也有利于维护司法的权威性及公信力;从制度设计来看,创新的设立了破产启动的新机制;从破产启动的模式来看,由当事人申请主义向法院职权辅助模式过渡。毋庸置疑,最高人民法院对于执转破制度的设立,无论是从司法实践,还是从理论价值来看,都影响重大、意义深远。法院在执转破程序的制度设计上,采取了法院依职权告知,当事人自愿同意的方式,即所谓的"半职权化"的破产启动模式,目的是在案件执行不能的情况下,法院对执转破程序的实施,发挥一定的司法能动性,但法院引导当事人的释明、告知行为作用有限,执行案件是否移送破产,最终决定权还是当事人。在司法实践中,基于自身利益的考虑,无论是债权人还是债务人,宁可执行不能,仍是不愿意申请破产,严重影响了执转破程序的运行和实施,"半职权化"执转破模式,实践中未达到预期效果。另外,执行中的参与分配制度,因在实施中适用主体任意扩大,企业法人参与其中,"先到先得"的执行原则更容易吸引当事人的选择,实践中替代了破产制度的实施,严重影响执转破制度的有效实施。作为两种不同的债权清偿制度,破产程序可实现所有债权的公平清偿,而执行程序则更注重个别债权的优先受偿。①两种程序之间不是截然对立的,而是互动共生的关系。②为完善法院执转破制度,笔者从扩大破产申请主体的范围加重责任承担、制定有效激励制度促使执转破程序的启动、法院告知义务提前至执行案件受理时、执转破程序之间增加强制清算程序、解决执转破程序的费用负担问题及构建法院依职权启动执转破程序等方面提出改进意见,望对该制度的发展有所裨益。
[Abstract]:February 2015, The interpretation of the Application of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China promulgated by the Supreme people's Court (hereinafter referred to as the interpretation of the Civil procedure Law), our country has for the first time formally formulated the execution case for transfer to bankruptcy examination (hereinafter referred to as the procedure of breaking the case). In February 2017, The Supreme people's Court's guiding opinions on several issues concerning the examination of the transfer of execution cases to bankruptcy (hereinafter referred to as "guidance opinions") are more explicit and specify in detail the transformation from execution to bankruptcy proceedings. From the perspective of the market subject, the establishment of the court breaking procedure means that the enterprise legal person can not only get the opportunity to be cured, but also legally withdraw from the market through the legal procedure; from the perspective of the judicial system, From the point of view of the protection of interests, it is beneficial to the fair protection of the legitimate rights and interests of creditors, debtors and other parties, as well as the maintenance of the authority and credibility of the judiciary; From the point of view of system design, the new mechanism of bankruptcy start-up is set up innovatively, and from the mode of bankruptcy start-up, the mode of party applying to the auxiliary mode of court functions and powers is transferred. There is no doubt that the Supreme people's Court for the establishment of the system, whether from the judicial practice or from the theoretical value, have a great impact, far-reaching significance. In the system design of breaking procedure, the court has adopted the method of informing the court ex officio that the parties voluntarily agree, that is, the so-called "semi-competent" mode of starting bankruptcy, the purpose of which is to implement the case if the case cannot be executed. The court plays a certain judicial initiative in the implementation of the enforcement of the breaking procedure, but the court guides the parties to explain, informs the action is limited, whether the execution case is transferred to bankruptcy, the final decision is the parties. In judicial practice, due to the consideration of self-interest, no matter the creditor or the debtor, they would rather execute than apply for bankruptcy, which seriously affects the operation and implementation of the breaking procedure and the "semi-authority" mode. In practice, the expected results have not been achieved. In addition, in the execution of the participation distribution system, because of the arbitrary expansion of the subject applicable to the implementation, the implementation principle of "first come, first served" is easier to attract the choice of the parties, and the implementation of the bankruptcy system is replaced by the implementation of the bankruptcy system in practice. Seriously affect the effective implementation of the breaking system. As two different systems of settlement of claims, insolvency proceedings can achieve fair settlement of all claims, while enforcement procedures pay more attention to the priority of individual claims. In order to perfect the court breaking system, the author expands the scope of the main body of the bankruptcy application to increase the responsibility and establish an effective incentive system to promote the initiation of the breaking procedure. When the court informs that the obligation is advanced to the execution of the case acceptance, it puts forward some suggestions on how to increase the compulsory liquidation procedure between the breaking procedures, solve the problem of the cost burden of the breaking procedure, and construct the court to initiate the breaking procedure ex officio, and so on. It is hoped that it will benefit the development of the system.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】