本文關(guān)鍵詞： 執(zhí)行和解 司法效率 和解協(xié)議　出處：《遼寧大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：民事執(zhí)行和解制度是我國(guó)民事執(zhí)行程序中的一項(xiàng)重要制度，是當(dāng)事人意思自治原則在執(zhí)行領(lǐng)域的體現(xiàn)和延伸，也是當(dāng)事人行使處分權(quán)的體現(xiàn)。執(zhí)行和解是指在執(zhí)行程序中，當(dāng)事人雙方相互讓步，就生效裁判所確認(rèn)法律關(guān)系(權(quán)利)的實(shí)現(xiàn)達(dá)成合意，并將該和解協(xié)議提請(qǐng)執(zhí)行法院審查認(rèn)可，以暫緩或中止、終結(jié)執(zhí)行程序的行為或制度。所以執(zhí)行和解也成為重要的結(jié)案方式之一,在我國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐中具有重大的實(shí)踐價(jià)值。執(zhí)行和解的應(yīng)用不但能夠降低執(zhí)行成本，而且還能以充分尊重當(dāng)事人意愿、靈活方便的方式解決糾紛。我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的“執(zhí)行難”是在執(zhí)行中的一大問(wèn)題，而執(zhí)行和解制度的存在可以一定程度上緩解此問(wèn)題，，具有重大的理論價(jià)和實(shí)踐價(jià)值。 但目前我國(guó)法律在立法上對(duì)執(zhí)行和解制度的規(guī)定簡(jiǎn)單，因而相關(guān)理論在實(shí)踐運(yùn)行中不僅沒(méi)能夠充分有效的發(fā)揮其價(jià)值和作用，甚至使得其在實(shí)踐中還產(chǎn)生了一些問(wèn)題。為此，筆者在司法工作一線即K市人民法院進(jìn)行了專門的調(diào)查研究。 本文通過(guò)筆者在調(diào)查研究所得的一些材料為基礎(chǔ)，分析執(zhí)行和解制度在立法、實(shí)踐過(guò)程中的不足之處，總結(jié)實(shí)踐運(yùn)行中主要存在的一些共性問(wèn)題：第一，案件的執(zhí)行和解率偏高，存在執(zhí)行法官過(guò)分干涉和解甚至強(qiáng)制和解案件的情況；第二，關(guān)于執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議的內(nèi)容以及形式存在適用混亂的情形；第三，執(zhí)行和解高效解決糾紛的效果不佳；第四，當(dāng)事人惡意和解時(shí)有存在，債權(quán)人與第三人利益被侵犯。分析此制度運(yùn)行中產(chǎn)生這些問(wèn)題的原因主要有四方面：第一，法院以及執(zhí)行法官在執(zhí)行和解中的地位不明確；第二，有關(guān)執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議的履行相關(guān)事項(xiàng)沒(méi)有明確的規(guī)范和嚴(yán)格的審查制度；第三，執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議的效力不明確；第四，達(dá)成和解后的救濟(jì)途徑不明確。通過(guò)以上對(duì)問(wèn)題的總結(jié)和問(wèn)題產(chǎn)生原因的分析，深入全面的研究民事執(zhí)行和解制度，從法院、執(zhí)行法官在執(zhí)行和解中地位，規(guī)范和解協(xié)議履行事項(xiàng)，執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議效力確定以及當(dāng)事人在執(zhí)行和解中權(quán)利救濟(jì)角度方面四個(gè)方面提出筆者對(duì)完善執(zhí)行和解制度的構(gòu)想：第一，明確法官介入和解的程度，并賦予執(zhí)行法官審查權(quán)和監(jiān)督權(quán)；第二，規(guī)范和解協(xié)議內(nèi)容和履行期限的限制和“反悔權(quán)”的適用，明確任意違反和解協(xié)議時(shí)的懲罰機(jī)制；第三，針對(duì)和解協(xié)議的效力并在立法上加以確定；第四，確立不安抗辯權(quán)制度、申請(qǐng)執(zhí)行人申請(qǐng)恢復(fù)執(zhí)行制度以及第三人的執(zhí)行異議權(quán)制度。以完善我國(guó)民事執(zhí)行和解制度。
[Abstract]:The system of civil execution reconciliation is an important system in the civil enforcement procedure of our country. It is the embodiment and extension of the principle of party autonomy in the field of execution. It is also the embodiment of the parties' exercising the right of disposition. The enforcement reconciliation means that in the execution procedure, the parties make mutual concessions and reach an agreement on the realization of the legal relationship (right) confirmed by the effective judgment. The settlement agreement will be submitted to the executive court for review and approval in order to suspend or suspend the execution of the procedure or the system. So the enforcement of the settlement has become an important way to close the case. It has great practical value in the judicial practice of our country. The application of enforcement reconciliation can not only reduce the execution cost, but also fully respect the will of the parties. A flexible and convenient way to solve disputes. In our judicial practice, the "difficulty of execution" is a major problem in the implementation, and the existence of the system of enforcement reconciliation can alleviate this problem to a certain extent. It has great theoretical and practical value. But at present, the law of our country in the legislation on the implementation of reconciliation system is simple, so the relevant theory in practice not only can not fully and effectively play its value and role. It even causes some problems in practice. For this reason, the author made a special investigation and study in the first line of judicial work, namely, the people's Court of K City. Based on the investigation of some materials obtained by the author, this paper analyzes the deficiencies of the implementation of reconciliation system in the legislative and practical process, and summarizes some common problems in the practice: first. The rate of execution and settlement of cases is too high, and there are cases of excessive interference of enforcement judges in reconciliation and even forced reconciliation; Secondly, there is confusion in the application of the content and form of the implementation of the settlement agreement; Third, the implementation of reconciliation and efficient settlement of disputes is not effective; 4th, the malicious settlement of the parties exists, the interests of creditors and third parties are infringed. The main reasons for these problems in the operation of this system are four aspects: first. The position of courts and enforcement judges in the enforcement of reconciliation is unclear; Second, there is no clear regulation and strict examination system about the implementation of the settlement agreement. Third, the effectiveness of the implementation of the settlement agreement is not clear; Through the summary of the above problems and the analysis of the causes of the problems, in-depth and comprehensive study of the civil enforcement settlement system, from the court. Enforcement judges in the implementation of the status of reconciliation, the settlement of the agreement to regulate the implementation of matters. The author puts forward the author's conception of perfecting the enforcement settlement system from four aspects: first, it is clear the degree of the judge intervening in the settlement. And endow the executive judge with the power to review and supervise; Second, to regulate the content of the settlement agreement and the limitation of the performance period and the application of the "right of retrogression", and to clarify the punishment mechanism of arbitrary violation of the settlement agreement; Third, the validity of the settlement agreement and legislation to determine; In 4th, the system of uneasiness right of defense was established, the system of application for reinstatement of execution and the system of third party's right of dissent of execution were established to perfect the system of civil execution and reconciliation in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.18

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 雷運(yùn)龍;;論民事執(zhí)行和解制度之價(jià)值[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年04期

2 徐繼軍;;論執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議的效力與性質(zhì)[J];法律適用;2006年09期

3 張永泉;;執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議法律效力研究[J];法學(xué)家;2011年01期

4 韓波;執(zhí)行和解爭(zhēng)議的法理分析[J];法學(xué);2002年09期

5 范毅強(qiáng);;民事強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行中的人權(quán)沖突及保障[J];廣西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

6 安麗,徐偉;法官的困惑:在判決與執(zhí)行之間——對(duì)一起案件的判決與執(zhí)行的法社會(huì)學(xué)思考[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

7 葉向東;民事執(zhí)行和解的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];中央政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1995年05期

8 范小華;;執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議的效力分析及完善立法建議[J];河北法學(xué);2008年06期

9 馮蘭芯,樓常青;淺談執(zhí)行和解制度的立法完善[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2003年08期

10 郭占湘,吳鵬,蘇曉偉;芻議執(zhí)行和解[J];律師世界;2001年07期

本文編號(hào)：1460730