本文選題：強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)　切入點(diǎn)：制度　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：進(jìn)入20世紀(jì)以來(lái),隨著社會(huì)的深度變革和人們法律訴求的增加,法院的民事強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行行為越來(lái)越多,而法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)是民事執(zhí)行行為中的一項(xiàng)重要程序,拍賣(mài)制度作為國(guó)際上通行的一種競(jìng)價(jià)方式,具有公開(kāi)、公平、公正的特征,符合市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的趨勢(shì),而堅(jiān)持和完善強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)制度,可以實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)采取強(qiáng)制措施的物品變現(xiàn)價(jià)格的最高,通過(guò)這種形式,即可以達(dá)到實(shí)現(xiàn)債權(quán),保護(hù)債權(quán)人合法權(quán)益的目的,同事通過(guò)強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的手段,又注重了效率和效益,減輕了債務(wù)人的負(fù)擔(dān)。 在司法實(shí)踐中,諸多債務(wù)糾紛經(jīng)判決后得不到有效的執(zhí)行,既損害了債權(quán)人的合法權(quán)益,又影響了法律的權(quán)威性,通過(guò)強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài),可以使大量的被執(zhí)行財(cái)產(chǎn)實(shí)現(xiàn)其經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值,在這一實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)價(jià)值的過(guò)程中,充分依賴和體現(xiàn)法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的公信力性質(zhì)。 法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的法律基礎(chǔ)并非《拍賣(mài)法》,其淵源來(lái)自于民事訴訟法,因此其性質(zhì)、效力以及具體程序上與任意拍賣(mài)有諸多不同,強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)行為是基于公權(quán)力的公正性、權(quán)威性、公信力的。因此,法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)制度要能夠發(fā)揮應(yīng)有作用,必須具有公信力。其公信力除了體現(xiàn)在由法院主持拍賣(mài),合理平衡各方當(dāng)事人的利益外,還體現(xiàn)在必須充分保障法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的穩(wěn)定性,減少因此引發(fā)的各種糾紛。 本文從法學(xué)原理上對(duì)法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)進(jìn)行探討和考察分析,通過(guò)對(duì)強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)和任意拍賣(mài)的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行比較研究,從而闡明其相對(duì)于一般拍賣(mài)所獨(dú)具的特征及其獨(dú)具的法律關(guān)系主體。強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)不同于一般拍賣(mài),它不僅包含有公共利益與私人利益間的互相沖突,如委托方執(zhí)行法院與拍賣(mài)各參與主體間的沖突,又有參與主體間的相互沖突。本文從強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的理論基礎(chǔ)著手,對(duì)整個(gè)拍賣(mài)過(guò)程中的各種利益關(guān)系進(jìn)行分析比對(duì),旨在從程序制訂和制度設(shè)計(jì)層面探討和解決各種沖突,從而在制度設(shè)計(jì)上作出相應(yīng)的調(diào)整。
[Abstract]:Since 20th century, with the deep change of the society and the increase of people's legal demands, the civil enforcement actions of the court are more and more, and the court compulsory auction is an important procedure in the civil execution behavior. The auction system, as a common bidding method in the world, has the characteristics of openness, fairness and justice, and conforms to the trend of the development of the market economy, while insisting on and perfecting the compulsory auction system, It is possible to achieve the highest realized price for goods that take coercive measures. In this form, the purpose of realizing claims and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of creditors can be achieved, and colleagues pay attention to efficiency and effectiveness by means of compulsory auction. The burden on the debtor was lightened. In judicial practice, many debt disputes can not be executed effectively after judgment, which not only damages the legitimate rights and interests of creditors, but also affects the authority of the law. Through forced auction, a large number of executed property can realize its economic value. In the process of realizing economic value, it fully depends on and embodies the credibility of the court compulsory auction. The legal basis of compulsory auction in court is not auction law, and its origin comes from the civil procedure law. Therefore, its nature, validity and concrete procedure are different from those of arbitrary auction. The act of compulsory auction is based on the fairness of public power. Therefore, in order to play its due role, the compulsory auction system of the court must have credibility. The credibility of the auction is not only reflected in the auction conducted by the court, but also in a reasonable balance between the interests of the parties concerned. It also shows that the stability of court compulsory auction must be fully guaranteed and the disputes caused by it should be reduced. Based on the principle of law, this paper makes an investigation and analysis on the compulsory auction of the court, and makes a comparative study of the nature of the compulsory auction and the arbitrary auction. Therefore, it clarifies its unique characteristics relative to general auction and its unique subject of legal relations. Compulsory auction is different from general auction. It contains not only the conflict between public and private interests, but also the conflict between public and private interests. Such as the conflicts between the parties involved in the execution of the court and the auction, and the conflicts among the participants. This paper analyzes and compares all kinds of interest relations in the whole auction process from the theoretical basis of the compulsory auction. The purpose of this paper is to discuss and resolve various conflicts from the aspect of procedure making and system design, so as to make corresponding adjustments in system design.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2;D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

中國(guó)期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前10條

1 肖建國(guó);論民事訴訟中強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的性質(zhì)和效力[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年04期

2 吳星奎;;強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)船舶中各方當(dāng)事人法律關(guān)系分析[J];重慶文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年06期

3 王曉明;;執(zhí)行拍賣(mài)程序中的權(quán)利救濟(jì)研究[J];法治研究;2007年11期

4 樊惠平;法院強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行拍賣(mài)制度的理論基礎(chǔ)[J];河北法學(xué);2004年09期

5 許衛(wèi)武;;試談法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的法律性質(zhì)[J];黃石教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年03期

6 宋漢林;;論民事強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行拍賣(mài)程序的完善[J];江蘇廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年01期

7 朱道華;;論法院強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)制度[J];嘉應(yīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

8 潘光曄;;論強(qiáng)制拍賣(mài)的性質(zhì)[J];科教文匯(上旬刊);2008年01期

9 黃宣;張杰;;論民事公訴制度的法理基礎(chǔ)[J];寧夏大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

10 張國(guó)明;;論執(zhí)行拍賣(mài)合同的非民事可訴性[J];人民司法;2006年05期

中國(guó)碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前2條

1 韋煒;執(zhí)行拍賣(mài)相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2005年

2 張艷麗;立法后評(píng)估的程序設(shè)計(jì)[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1598759