本文選題：執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議 + 不執(zhí)行契約��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議是當事人在生效判決作出后，申請強制執(zhí)行前達成的合意。在我國極力提倡調解、和解的司法背景下，這類和解協(xié)議大量出現(xiàn)并不斷增加。我國現(xiàn)對該類協(xié)議未有明確立法規(guī)定，理論界與實務界對其性質及其與原判決的關系亦尚未統(tǒng)一認識。現(xiàn)雖有部分零碎的探索，但我國在立法上始終未對和解協(xié)議與原判決的關系作出系統(tǒng)回應。 本文運用分析、比較和理論聯(lián)系實際的研究方法論證執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議的性質，以把握該類和解協(xié)議與原判決的靜態(tài)關系；并在借鑒域外考察和總結我國現(xiàn)有制度的基礎上，以期完善因執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議發(fā)生爭議時的處理機制。最后重點強調應當在貫徹強制執(zhí)行保障債權人權利的同時，賦予債務人必要的救濟途徑。 全文共三萬余字，從下述五個部分對執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議進行研究： 第一部分：問題的提出。通過兩個實務案例的引入和分析，提出執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議這一主題，以及實務界在處理該類和解協(xié)議時遇到的困惑。結合理論上關于該類和解協(xié)議的研究成果綜述，筆者提出三個問題，即執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議的性質如何界定？執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議與原確定判決效力的關系如何把握？若一方當事人違反執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議，則另一方應如何有效救濟？以展開本文的論述。 第二部分：執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議的定性及其意義。筆者從現(xiàn)有學者對于執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議的定義，結合該類和解協(xié)議的基本特征，對其進行定義并與相關概念區(qū)分。繼而對學術界現(xiàn)有的學說爭議撥亂反正，將該類和解協(xié)議定性為不執(zhí)行契約，并從民事訴訟制度的目的、強制執(zhí)行程序的功能和意思自治原則出發(fā)，論證本文采“不執(zhí)行契約”定性的正確性，以及研究執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議的意義。 第三部分：對執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議處理方式的域外考察。域外國家和地區(qū)主要借鑒德國、日本和我國臺灣地區(qū)，它們從保護債務人的角度出發(fā)，在債權人啟動強制執(zhí)行程序后，賦予債務人以執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議異議事由提起異議之訴的方式，予以救濟。 第四部分：對執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議處理方式的現(xiàn)狀研究。因執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議本質上是一種不執(zhí)行契約，，故其與原判決的效力是共存的，互不影響。當債權人和債務人因該類和解協(xié)議發(fā)生爭議時，我國缺少對債務人的必要救濟。 第五部分：執(zhí)行前和解制度的構建設想。借鑒域外考察的啟示，并結合我國現(xiàn)行對執(zhí)行前和解協(xié)議的處理方式，筆者建議從債權人和債務人兩個角度對執(zhí)行前和解制度進行構建，一方面參照執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議以立法形式明確其效力，另一方面借鑒域外的債務人異議之訴制度，予以具體構建。
[Abstract]:The pre-enforcement settlement agreement is an agreement reached before the parties apply for enforcement after the effective judgment.In the judicial background of mediation and reconciliation, these kinds of settlement agreements appear in large numbers and continue to increase.At present, there is no clear legislation on this kind of agreement, and the theoretical and practical circles have not yet unified understanding of its nature and its relationship with the original judgment.Although there are some piecemeal explorations, our legislation has not made a systematic response to the relationship between the settlement agreement and the original judgment.This paper uses the methods of analysis, comparison and theory combined with practice to prove the nature of the pre-implementation settlement agreement in order to grasp the static relationship between this kind of settlement agreement and the original judgment, and on the basis of studying and summing up the existing system of our country for reference.In order to improve the settlement agreement before the implementation of disputes arising from the settlement mechanism.Finally, the author emphasizes that the debtor should be given the necessary remedy while enforcing and protecting the creditor's rights.The full text consists of more than 30,000 words and studies the pre-implementation settlement agreement from the following five parts:The first part: the raising of the question.Through the introduction and analysis of two practical cases, this paper puts forward the subject of pre-implementation settlement agreement and the confusion encountered by the practical circle in dealing with this kind of settlement agreement.Combined with the theoretical research on this kind of settlement agreement, the author puts forward three questions: how to define the nature of the pre-implementation settlement agreement?How to grasp the relationship between the pre-implementation settlement agreement and the validity of the original decision?If one of the parties violates the pre-enforcement settlement agreement, how can the other party provide effective relief?In order to expand the discussion of this article.The second part: the nature and significance of the pre-implementation settlement agreement.Based on the definition of pre-implementation settlement agreement and the basic characteristics of this kind of settlement agreement, the author defines it and distinguishes it from the relevant concepts.Then the existing academic theory dispute is corrected, this kind of settlement agreement is characterized as non-execution contract, and from the purpose of the civil litigation system, the principle of the function and autonomy of the compulsory execution procedure is set out.This paper demonstrates the validity of the nature of non-execution contract and the significance of pre-implementation settlement agreement.The third part: the outside-country investigation of the pre-implementation settlement agreement.Foreign countries and regions mainly draw lessons from Germany, Japan and Taiwan. From the perspective of debtor protection, they set out after creditors started enforcement proceedings.To grant the debtor relief by suing the cause of dissent before the execution of the settlement agreement.The fourth part: the present situation of settlement agreement before implementation.Because the pre-execution settlement agreement is essentially a non-execution contract, it is coexisting with the original judgment and does not affect each other.When the creditor and debtor dispute over this kind of settlement agreement, our country lacks the necessary relief to the debtor.The fifth part: the conciliatory system before implementation.Referring to the enlightenment of the overseas investigation, and combining the current way of dealing with the pre-implementation settlement agreement in our country, the author suggests that the pre-enforcement settlement system should be constructed from the perspective of creditors and debtors.On the one hand, referring to the implementation of the settlement agreement in the form of legislation to clarify its effectiveness, on the other hand, to draw lessons from the extraterritorial debtor dissent action system, to be specifically constructed.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.18

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 王娣;孫凌岳;;論債務人異議之訴[J];北京科技大學學報(社會科學版);2011年03期

2 王福華;兩大法系中訴之利益理論的程序價值[J];法律科學.西北政法學院學報;2000年05期

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

4 賀劍;;訴訟外和解的實體法基礎——評最高人民法院指導案例2號[J];法學;2013年03期

5 王澤鑒;;誠實信用與權利濫用——我國臺灣地區(qū)“最高法院”九一年臺上字第七五四號判決評析[J];北方法學;2013年06期

6 張嘉軍;;論訴訟契約的性質[J];河北法學;2008年12期

7 劉榮軍;誠實信用原則在民事訴訟中的適用[J];法學研究;1998年04期

8 江晨,梁莉莉;意思自治理念在民事訴訟中的貫徹及其限度[J];蘭州學刊;2004年06期

9 王亞新;;一審判決效力與二審中的訴訟外和解協(xié)議——最高人民法院公布的2號指導案例評析[J];法學研究;2012年04期

10 吳澤勇;;“吳梅案”與判決后和解的處理機制——兼與王亞新教授商榷[J];法學研究;2013年01期

本文編號：1762826