本文選題：法院調(diào)解 + 法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保��； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度來源于《最高人民法院關(guān)于人民法院民事調(diào)解工作若干問題的規(guī)定》第十一條的規(guī)定，是指在法院調(diào)解過程中，當(dāng)事人可以約定由一方當(dāng)事人自己提供擔(dān)保或者由案外人提供擔(dān)保，從而促成調(diào)解協(xié)議的達成，保障調(diào)解的順利進行。 由于調(diào)解協(xié)議可以申請強制執(zhí)行，從表面上看使得法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度顯得多此一舉。其實不然，強制執(zhí)行是一種事后救濟，而法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度則側(cè)重于事前保障。在實踐中，不履行調(diào)解協(xié)議的案件也時有發(fā)生，因此債權(quán)人一方多有遲疑，法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度便是為了讓債權(quán)人消除這種顧慮而產(chǎn)生的。它是完善法院調(diào)解制度的措施之一，而法院調(diào)解是一種重要的化解糾紛的方式，是法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度得以存在的大前提。但現(xiàn)階段法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度由于其相關(guān)規(guī)定甚少，因此常常不被關(guān)注。雖然不被關(guān)注，其意義與價值卻不容忽視。法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度不僅擴大了責(zé)任財產(chǎn)的范圍從而保護債權(quán)人權(quán)益，也通過擔(dān)保為債務(wù)人贏得了寶貴的時間。不僅提高了調(diào)解的效率，而且對調(diào)解能夠真正化解糾紛起到重要作用。就其制度本身而言，，也實現(xiàn)了實體法與程序法的有機融合。所以，法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度有其存在的價值與意義。 在司法實踐中，法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保則更多的是具備實體法上的內(nèi)涵，尤其是多種擔(dān)保并存時該如何處理的情形更是如此。在實踐中，僅有抵押、質(zhì)押、保證三種擔(dān)保方式適用于法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保，因留置具有法定性，定金具有合同性質(zhì)所以并不適用于該制度。盡管相關(guān)的實體法規(guī)定有助于解決法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度運用中的實際問題，但法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度仍不可避免地出現(xiàn)了各種弊端，這是因為該制度在我國確立不久，司法實踐不夠，加之法條的規(guī)定過于粗糙，從而造成實踐中想用卻難以操作的尷尬處境。這些問題主要集中表現(xiàn)為：擔(dān)保人的訴訟地位以及救濟途徑不確定、調(diào)解協(xié)議生效時間與擔(dān)保生效時間不一致、法院應(yīng)當(dāng)具備的審查義務(wù)不明等。本文在總結(jié)歸納學(xué)者們研究成果的同時，也根據(jù)2012年《民事訴訟法》新增的相關(guān)條文對法院調(diào)解擔(dān)保制度進行了新的初步探討。
[Abstract]:The guarantee system for court mediation derives from the provisions of Article 11 of the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on certain issues concerning Civil Mediation in the people's Court, and refers to the process of mediation in the court,The parties may agree that one party shall provide the guarantee by itself or the outsider of the case, thereby facilitating the conclusion of the mediation agreement and ensuring the smooth progress of the mediation.Because mediation agreement can be applied for enforcement, on the surface, court mediation guarantee system appears superfluous.In fact, enforcement is a kind of ex post relief, and court mediation guarantee system focuses on prior protection.In practice, the failure to perform the conciliation agreement also happens from time to time, so the creditor has much hesitation, the court mediation security system is to let the creditor eliminate this concern.It is one of the measures to perfect the court mediation system, and court mediation is an important way to resolve disputes and the premise of the existence of court mediation guarantee system.However, the court mediation guarantee system is often ignored because of its few regulations.Although not paid attention to, its significance and value can not be ignored.The court mediation security system not only expands the scope of the liable property to protect the creditor's rights and interests, but also gains the debtor valuable time through the guarantee.It not only improves the efficiency of mediation, but also plays an important role in resolving disputes.As far as its system itself is concerned, it also realizes the organic fusion of substantive law and procedural law.Therefore, the court mediation guarantee system has its existence value and significance.In judicial practice, the court mediation guarantee has the connotation of substantive law, especially how to deal with the coexistence of multiple guarantees.In practice, only mortgage, pledge and guarantee are applicable to the court mediation guarantee, but the deposit is not applicable to the system because the lien is legally qualified and the deposit has the nature of contract.Although the relevant substantive law provisions are helpful to solve the practical problems in the application of the court mediation guarantee system, the court mediation guarantee system still inevitably has a variety of drawbacks, which is because the system has not been established in our country, and the judicial practice is not enough.In addition, the provisions of the law are too rough, resulting in an awkward situation in practice.These problems mainly focus on the uncertainty of the surety's litigation status and remedies, the inconsistency between the effective time of the mediation agreement and the effective time of the guarantee, the unclear obligation of the court to examine and so on.While summing up the research results of scholars, this paper also makes a new preliminary discussion on the court mediation guarantee system according to the new articles in the Civil procedure Law of 2012.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 儲育明,王昌來;無獨立請求權(quán)第三人制度分解與重構(gòu)[J];河北法學(xué);2002年04期

2 范愉;調(diào)解的重構(gòu)(上)——以法院調(diào)解的改革為重點[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2004年02期

本文編號：1760476