本文選題：執(zhí)行時效 + 強制執(zhí)行請求權��； 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國民事訴訟法規(guī)定了“執(zhí)行時效”制度，執(zhí)行債權人必須在法定的申請執(zhí)行期間內(nèi)向人民法院提出申請，否則申請將被人民法院駁回,喪失請求強制執(zhí)行的權利。然而執(zhí)行債權人據(jù)以申請執(zhí)行的生效法律文書所確定的乃是當事人的私權，與經(jīng)國家法定程序確定之前的私權在本質(zhì)上是同一的，而如債權等私權所生之請求權等受訴時效的約束，因此經(jīng)生效法律文書確定的請求權也應有適用訴訟時效的余地。執(zhí)行時效制度卻在時間上約束當事人向人民法院申請執(zhí)行的權利，從而阻礙了訴訟時效適用于執(zhí)行依據(jù)確定的私權。造成這一問題的主要原因在于沒有厘清執(zhí)行時效針對的客體與執(zhí)行時效的本質(zhì)，，進而使得執(zhí)行時效適用的程序也有違審執(zhí)分離原則，不盡合理。本文首先通過對現(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)的梳理提出了執(zhí)行時效制度的問題，進而分析執(zhí)行時效的客體與本質(zhì)，再借鑒域外相關制度提出改革的方法。 本文全文包括引言，總共五部分，約二萬八千多字。 引言部分通過比較我國與其他大陸法系國家和地區(qū)持有民事執(zhí)行依據(jù)的當事人向執(zhí)行機關申請強制執(zhí)行的差別，引出對我國執(zhí)行時效制度進行研究的必要性。然后對該論題的研究現(xiàn)狀進行了總結，最后指出了本文的創(chuàng)新之處。 第一部分對我國現(xiàn)行執(zhí)行時效制度相關的法律、司法解釋進行了梳理，得出立法上存在沖突、執(zhí)行時效的性質(zhì)難以明確、適用的程序違背審執(zhí)分離原則三大問題。 第二部分分析了造成上述問題的核心原因——對執(zhí)行時效的客體和本質(zhì)認識不清，誤用時效制度約束了當事人向人民法院申請強制執(zhí)行這一公法權利，提出執(zhí)行時效的客體實為執(zhí)行依據(jù)所確定的當事人的私權請求權，執(zhí)行時效的本質(zhì)是前述私權請求權的訴訟時效（消滅時效）。 第三部分考察了德國、日本、我國臺灣地區(qū)等大陸法系國家和地區(qū)的相關制度，當事人向執(zhí)行機關申請強執(zhí)制行的權利不受時效制度約束，但經(jīng)法律程序確定的請求權或權利與未確定的請求權或權利一體適用消滅時效，而執(zhí)行程序中因消滅時效產(chǎn)生的爭議則通過債務人異議之訴加以解決。 第四部分在明確執(zhí)行時效的客體和本質(zhì)的基礎上，對執(zhí)行時效這一概念存在必要性提出了質(zhì)疑，認為近期有存在的必要性，從長期來看應當統(tǒng)一于訴訟時效（消滅時效）制度；并認為現(xiàn)行審查制度和執(zhí)行時效的爭議解決制度不盡合理，有違審執(zhí)分離原則，應當建立債務人異議之訴來處理執(zhí)行程序中的實體爭議；還對現(xiàn)行執(zhí)行時效期間的長度的進了探討。
[Abstract]:The civil procedure law of our country has stipulated the system of "execution limitation", the enforcement creditor must apply to the people's court within the legal period of application execution, otherwise the application will be rejected by the people's court, and the right of compulsory execution will be lost. However, the effective legal document on which the enforcement creditor applies for enforcement determines the private rights of the parties, which are essentially the same as the private rights prior to the determination of the legal procedures by the state. However, the right of claim arising from private rights, such as creditor's rights, is subject to the limitation of action, so the right of claim determined by the effective legal documents should also have room for applying the limitation of action. However, the system of limitation of execution restricts the parties' right to apply to the people's court for execution in time, thus hindering the limitation of action being applied to the private rights determined by the basis of execution. The main reason for this problem lies in the failure to clarify the object of execution limitation and the essence of execution limitation, which makes the procedure of enforcement prescription also violate the principle of separation of execution and execution, which is unreasonable. In this paper, the author first puts forward the problem of the enforcement prescription system by combing the current laws and regulations, and then analyzes the object and essence of the enforcement prescription system, and then puts forward the methods of reform based on the relevant system outside the country. The full text of this paper includes introduction, a total of five parts, about 28000 words. The introduction compares the differences between the parties who hold civil enforcement basis in our country and other civil law countries and regions, and leads to the necessity of studying the enforcement limitation system in our country. Then the research status of the thesis is summarized, and the innovation of this paper is pointed out. The first part of the current enforcement of the statute of limitations system related laws, judicial interpretation was combed, the conclusion is that there are conflicts in legislation, the nature of enforcement prescription is difficult to clarify, and the applicable procedure violates the principle of separation of trial and execution. The second part analyzes the core cause of the above problems-unclear understanding of the object and essence of the prescription of execution, and the misuse of the prescription system restricts the parties to apply to the people's court for enforcement of this public law right. The object of the limitation of execution is the right of private right of the parties determined by the basis of execution, and the essence of the limitation of execution is the limitation of action (extinguishing the limitation of limitation) of the said right of private right. The third part examines the relevant systems of civil law countries and regions such as Germany, Japan, Taiwan and so on. The right of the parties to apply to the executive organ for enforcement is not subject to the limitation system. But the right of claim or right determined by the legal procedure and the undetermined claim or right shall be applied to the extinguishing limitation period, while the disputes arising from the extinguishing limitation period in the enforcement procedure will be resolved by the action of the debtor's dissent. The fourth part, on the basis of clarifying the object and essence of the prescription of execution, questions the necessity of the concept of the limitation of execution, and holds that the necessity of existence in the near future should be unified in the system of limitation of action (extinguishing prescription) in the long run. It is considered that the current review system and the dispute settlement system of the enforcement prescription are unreasonable, which are contrary to the principle of separation of trial and execution, so the debtor's dissent action should be established to deal with the substantive dispute in the enforcement procedure. In addition, the length of the current limitation period is discussed.
【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8條

1 孫永亮;;申請執(zhí)行期間立法修正之再認識[J];德州學院學報;2011年01期

2 肖建國,趙晉山;民事執(zhí)行若干疑難問題探討[J];法律適用;2005年06期

3 肖建國;;《民事訴訟法》執(zhí)行編修改的若干問題探討以民事強制執(zhí)行救濟制度的適用為中心[J];法律適用;2008年04期

4 梁鋒;;當事人申請法院強制執(zhí)行期限制度的探討[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2012年12期

5 喬宇;;論申請執(zhí)行時效的適用程序——兼談權力分工語境下的審執(zhí)分立[J];法律適用;2013年04期

6 占善剛;;對我國民事申請執(zhí)行期間制度的初步檢討——以《民事訴訟法》第219條的修改為對象的分析[J];南京師大學報(社會科學版);2011年01期

7 王飛鴻;趙晉山;;民事訴訟法執(zhí)行編修改的理解與適用[J];人民司法;2008年01期

8 俞靈雨;趙晉山;;對執(zhí)行程序中若干法律問題的理解[J];人民司法;2010年05期

本文編號：1855908