本文關(guān)鍵詞： 執(zhí)行救濟(jì) 債務(wù)人異議之訴 訴訟性質(zhì)　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：債務(wù)人異議之訴是執(zhí)行救濟(jì)制度中實(shí)體救濟(jì)的一種方式。在執(zhí)行程序中，當(dāng)債務(wù)人擁有抗辯債權(quán)人實(shí)體權(quán)利的異議事由時(shí)，債務(wù)人能夠提起異議之訴，進(jìn)行權(quán)利救濟(jì)。2012年進(jìn)行了《民事訴訟法》的修改，執(zhí)行部分的修改是一大亮點(diǎn)，不過我國并沒有設(shè)立債務(wù)人異議之訴制度。文章以民事執(zhí)行中的債務(wù)人異議之訴為研究主題，在收集、介紹和分析現(xiàn)有資料的基礎(chǔ)上，闡釋了對(duì)債務(wù)人異議之訴的基本理論認(rèn)識(shí)，分析了設(shè)立債務(wù)人異議之訴的可行性，并對(duì)如何構(gòu)建債務(wù)人異議之訴進(jìn)行了研討。 本文除引言和結(jié)語外，正文有四個(gè)部分，共計(jì)約27000余字： 第一部分是對(duì)債務(wù)人異議之訴的基本理論分析。在學(xué)界對(duì)債務(wù)人異議之訴概念不同認(rèn)識(shí)的基礎(chǔ)上，本文認(rèn)為債務(wù)人異議之訴是債務(wù)人為了變更執(zhí)行名義的執(zhí)行力，實(shí)現(xiàn)終止執(zhí)行程序目的的訴訟；同時(shí)債務(wù)人異議之訴符合民事訴訟法中的程序正義和實(shí)體正義、訴訟公正和效率的價(jià)值觀；最后針對(duì)學(xué)者們對(duì)債務(wù)人異議之訴訴訟性質(zhì)到底是傳統(tǒng)形成之訴、確認(rèn)之訴、給付之訴還是新型的救濟(jì)之訴、命令之訴的爭(zhēng)議，認(rèn)為訴訟性質(zhì)應(yīng)當(dāng)是變更之訴；在形成之訴訴訟性質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上，本文認(rèn)為，應(yīng)當(dāng)采納訴訟標(biāo)的的實(shí)體法說，同時(shí)在程序上通過保障當(dāng)事人的選擇權(quán)、強(qiáng)調(diào)法官的闡明義務(wù)來確定債務(wù)人異議之訴的訴訟標(biāo)的，以此來解決實(shí)體法說的缺陷。 第二部分是債務(wù)人異議之訴的立法比較。執(zhí)行程序開始之前，德國和日本立法規(guī)定要求執(zhí)行機(jī)關(guān)賦予債權(quán)人“執(zhí)行簽證”，因此，債務(wù)人可以對(duì)“執(zhí)行簽證”和債權(quán)人的執(zhí)行請(qǐng)求權(quán)分別提起異議之訴；而我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)沒有對(duì)債務(wù)人異議之訴制度進(jìn)行區(qū)分，而是概括規(guī)定當(dāng)債務(wù)人擁有消滅或妨礙債權(quán)人請(qǐng)求的實(shí)體法律事由時(shí)，可以在強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行程序終結(jié)前，提起異議之訴；不過，都認(rèn)為債務(wù)人異議之訴是當(dāng)事人之間實(shí)體權(quán)利義務(wù)的爭(zhēng)議。 第三部分是我國確定債務(wù)人異議之訴的可行性分析。1991年《民事訴訟法》，混淆了執(zhí)行異議和異議之訴的概念，，《民事訴訟法》經(jīng)過兩次修改，執(zhí)行程序中設(shè)立了程序上的救濟(jì)方式和實(shí)體上的救濟(jì)方式，不過在執(zhí)行難、債權(quán)人中心主義的執(zhí)行程序觀和過度依靠審判監(jiān)督程序的原因下，我國并沒有建立債務(wù)人異議之訴制度；因而，建立債務(wù)人異議之訴制度具有完善執(zhí)行救濟(jì)制度二元結(jié)構(gòu)和充分發(fā)揮再審程序作用的現(xiàn)實(shí)必要性。 第四部分是我國債務(wù)人異議之訴的構(gòu)建。從執(zhí)行制度的理念出發(fā)，我國建立債務(wù)人異議之訴應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循效率優(yōu)先和誠實(shí)信用原則；同時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)從當(dāng)事人、異議事由及程序設(shè)置等方面對(duì)我國所確定債務(wù)人異議之訴制度進(jìn)行明確規(guī)范。
[Abstract]:In the enforcement procedure, when the debtor has the objection reason of the entity right of the defense creditor, the debtor can bring the objection action. In 2012, the amendment of the Civil procedure Law was carried out, and the amendment of the executive part was a bright spot. However, our country has not set up the system of dissenting action of debtor. This article takes the dissenting action of debtor in civil execution as the research topic, on the basis of collecting, introducing and analyzing the existing information. This paper expounds the basic theoretical understanding of the dissenting action of the debtor, analyzes the feasibility of setting up the dissenting action of the debtor, and discusses how to construct the dissenting action of the debtor. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the text has four parts, a total of about 27000 words: The first part is the basic theoretical analysis of debtor dissent action, on the basis of different understanding of the concept of debtor dissent action in academic circles. This paper holds that the dissenting action of the debtor is the action of the debtor in order to change the execution power of the execution and realize the purpose of terminating the execution procedure. At the same time, the debtor dissent suit accords with the values of procedural justice and substantive justice, litigation justice and efficiency in the civil procedure law; Finally, in view of the dispute that the lawsuit nature of dissent to debtor is the traditional form action, the confirmation action, the payment action or the new relief action and the order action, the author thinks that the nature of the lawsuit should be the action of change; On the basis of forming the nature of litigation, this paper holds that the substantive law of the subject matter of litigation should be adopted, and the right of choice of the parties should be protected through the procedure at the same time. It emphasizes the obligation of the judge to determine the object of action of the debtor's dissenting action, so as to solve the defects of the substantive law theory. The second part is the legislative comparison of the debtor's dissenting action. Prior to the commencement of enforcement proceedings, German and Japanese legislation required the enforcement authorities to grant creditors "enforcement visas", so. The debtor may challenge the "execution visa" and the creditor's right to enforce separately; However, Taiwan does not distinguish the system of dissenting action of debtor, but generalizes that when the debtor has the substantive legal cause of extinguishing or obstructing the creditor's request, it can be concluded before the end of the enforcement procedure. Filing a complaint of objection; However, it is believed that the debtor's dissent action is a dispute between the parties' substantive rights and obligations. The third part is the feasibility analysis of determining the dissent action of debtor in our country. In 1991, the Civil procedure Law confused the concept of executive objection and dissent action, and the Civil procedure Law was amended twice. There are procedural remedies and substantive remedies in the enforcement procedure, but due to the difficulty of execution, the creditor centrism view of execution procedure and the excessive reliance on the trial supervision procedure. China has not established the system of debtor dissent action; Therefore, it is necessary to perfect the dual structure of execution relief system and give full play to the role of retrial procedure. The 4th part is the construction of the dissent action of the debtor in our country. From the idea of the execution system, the principle of efficiency priority and good faith should be followed in establishing the dissent action of the debtor in our country. At the same time, we should regulate the system of dissenting action of debtor in our country from the aspects of parties, reasons of dissent and procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(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 季衛(wèi)東;程序比較論[J];比較法研究;1993年01期

2 馬登科;程序上的執(zhí)行救濟(jì)與實(shí)體上的執(zhí)行救濟(jì)[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2001年08期

3 譚秋桂;民事執(zhí)行立法:程序構(gòu)建與規(guī)則設(shè)定[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2003年03期

4 江偉;韓英波;;論訴訟標(biāo)的[J];法學(xué)家;1997年02期

5 唐力;;論民事執(zhí)行的正當(dāng)性與程序保障──以第三人異議之訴為中心[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年05期

6 李龍;論我國民事訴訟標(biāo)的理論的基本框架[J];法學(xué);1999年07期

7 常怡;肖瑤;;執(zhí)行和解制度若干問題研究[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

8 王亞新;;我國新民事訴訟法與誠實(shí)信用原則——以日本民事訴訟立法經(jīng)過及司法實(shí)務(wù)為參照[J];比較法研究;2012年05期

9 張衛(wèi)平;;民事訴訟中的誠實(shí)信用原則[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年06期

10 肖建國;;執(zhí)行程序修訂的價(jià)值共識(shí)與展望——兼評(píng)《民事訴訟法修正案》的相關(guān)條款[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年06期

本文編號(hào)：1489833