本文選題：執(zhí)行和解 + 執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議��； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：執(zhí)行和解緩和了生效法律文書的嚴(yán)苛性,使債權(quán)人和債務(wù)人可以在強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行中達(dá)到利益平衡,有利于及時(shí)履行、緩減沖突、節(jié)約成本。在實(shí)際執(zhí)行工作中,對于執(zhí)行和解及其法律效力的認(rèn)知出現(xiàn)偏差,導(dǎo)致執(zhí)行工作的混亂。為此,有必要加強(qiáng)對執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議法律問題的研究,完善我國的執(zhí)行和解制度,發(fā)揮其在民事執(zhí)行中的應(yīng)有作用。 在民事執(zhí)行和解中,申請執(zhí)行人對經(jīng)生效法律文書確認(rèn)的實(shí)體權(quán)利和程序權(quán)利的處分,是當(dāng)事人意思自治在執(zhí)行程序中的體現(xiàn)。作為一種法律制度,民事執(zhí)行和解的核心是當(dāng)事人自愿處分自己的實(shí)體權(quán)利和程序權(quán)利,法院根據(jù)當(dāng)事人意思自治原則中止或終結(jié)執(zhí)行程序。 我國現(xiàn)行的法律制度中并未賦予債務(wù)人異議之訴的權(quán)利,所以執(zhí)行法院應(yīng)當(dāng)對當(dāng)事人達(dá)成的和解協(xié)議是否實(shí)際履行進(jìn)行審查。對于申請執(zhí)行人由于欺詐、脅迫而達(dá)成和解協(xié)議的,僅僅賦予申請執(zhí)行人申請恢復(fù)執(zhí)行原生效法律文書的權(quán)利,缺乏對被執(zhí)行人的懲罰和對申請執(zhí)行人的有益保護(hù)。 目前,日常執(zhí)行實(shí)踐中發(fā)現(xiàn)我國執(zhí)行和解制度有以下問題：未賦予執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議應(yīng)有的法律效力；人民法院在執(zhí)行和解過程中的地位和作用不明,人民法院不得參與執(zhí)行和解協(xié)商的過程不符合執(zhí)行實(shí)務(wù)中的現(xiàn)實(shí)情況；對于當(dāng)事人達(dá)成的和解協(xié)議的成立的要件規(guī)定不明；人民法院在執(zhí)行和解過程中對當(dāng)事人達(dá)成的和解協(xié)議是否具有審查責(zé)任規(guī)定不明確等。以上不足,導(dǎo)致了執(zhí)行和解在實(shí)際執(zhí)行中并不能得到有效的應(yīng)用,達(dá)不到期望的法律效果和社會效果,不僅浪費(fèi)了有限的司法資源,更容易造成執(zhí)行工作的混亂。 針對上述現(xiàn)行執(zhí)行和解制度的問題,應(yīng)從下列方面加以改進(jìn)與完善：一是賦予執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議應(yīng)有的法律效力。在定位上,應(yīng)將執(zhí)行和解視為當(dāng)事人在執(zhí)行中達(dá)成的民事契約,將其定位為私法行為。當(dāng)事人受該行為的約束,一方當(dāng)事人不按此協(xié)議履行,另一方當(dāng)事人可要求按原生效法律文書執(zhí)行,亦可根據(jù)和解協(xié)議的約定,要求對方承擔(dān)更大的違約責(zé)任,從而加大了被執(zhí)行人惡意簽訂和解協(xié)議的違約成本,保證了申請執(zhí)行人應(yīng)有的權(quán)利。二是明確人民法院在執(zhí)行過程中的地位。執(zhí)行法院應(yīng)當(dāng)告知雙方當(dāng)事人達(dá)成和解協(xié)議之后產(chǎn)生的相應(yīng)法律后果；人民法院可以在充分考慮雙方當(dāng)事人利益的基礎(chǔ)上,促成雙方當(dāng)事人就生效法律文書確定的義務(wù)在履行過程中達(dá)成一致。三是賦予人民法院對和解協(xié)議的審查權(quán)。執(zhí)行和解不僅僅關(guān)系到申請執(zhí)行人與被執(zhí)行人的利益,也能夠提高法院執(zhí)行工作的效率,賦予法院對和解協(xié)議的審查權(quán),可以審查當(dāng)事人達(dá)成的和解協(xié)議是否有不符合法律規(guī)定的情形,防止有人惡意利用和解協(xié)議分割對方利益,同時(shí)也避免了因和解協(xié)議無效、可撤銷等情形而導(dǎo)致執(zhí)行過程的反復(fù),節(jié)約司法資源。第四,賦予申請執(zhí)行人依和解協(xié)議另行起訴的權(quán)利�，F(xiàn)行法律規(guī)定一方當(dāng)事人不履行和解協(xié)議的,人民法院可依當(dāng)事人申請恢復(fù)對原生效法律文書的執(zhí)行。而在執(zhí)行過程中達(dá)成的和解協(xié)議,是申請執(zhí)行人與被執(zhí)行人形成的另一個(gè)新的債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系,并不依附于原生效法律文書而成立,故其也具有民事合同的效力,申請執(zhí)行人亦可以此為依據(jù)提起訴訟,從而給予被執(zhí)行人以更為嚴(yán)厲的懲罰。五是建立債務(wù)人異議之訴制度。在某些較為復(fù)雜的情況下,人民法院審查和解協(xié)議是否實(shí)際履行存在一定困難,此時(shí)賦予被執(zhí)行人起訴權(quán),有助于保障申請執(zhí)行人和被執(zhí)行人的合法權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:The enforcement of reconciliation alleviated the severity of the effective legal documents, and made the creditors and debtors able to achieve a balance of interests in the enforcement of the compulsory execution. It was beneficial to the timely implementation, the mitigation of conflicts and the cost saving. In the actual implementation, there was a deviation in the recognition of the implementation of the reconciliation and its legal effect. We should strengthen the study of the legal issues of the implementation of the settlement agreement, improve our system of enforcement reconciliation, and give full play to its due role in civil execution.
In the civil execution reconciliation, the disposition of the entity rights and procedural rights confirmed by the executor is the embodiment of the party's autonomy in the execution procedure. As a legal system, the core of the civil enforcement of the settlement is the parties' voluntary disposition of their own substantive and procedural rights, and the court is based on the intention of the parties. The principle of autonomy terminate or terminate the execution procedure.
In the current legal system of China, the debtor has not been given the right to dissenting the debtor, so the Executive Court should examine the actual performance of the settlement agreement reached by the parties. For the applicant to achieve a conciliatory agreement due to fraud and coercion, the applicant should only give the applicant the right to apply for the resumption of the effective legal instrument. Profits, lack of punishment for the executor and beneficial protection for the applicant.
At present, in the daily practice, the following problems are found in the implementation of the settlement system in our country: no legal effect is given to the implementation of the settlement agreement; the status and role of the people's court in the process of the implementation of the reconciliation is unknown, and the process of the people's court may not participate in the implementation of the reconciliation negotiation is not in line with the actual situation in the practice of the implementation of the settlement; The provisions of the establishment of the settlement agreement are not clear; the people's court is not clear about whether the settlement agreement reached by the parties in the process of the settlement of the settlement is not clear. The above deficiencies lead to the implementation of the reconciliation in the actual implementation and can not be effectively applied, not to reach the desired legal effect and social effect, not only Waste of limited judicial resources is more likely to cause confusion in execution.
In view of the problems mentioned above, the following aspects should be improved and perfected from the following aspects: first, the legal effect should be given to the implementation of the settlement agreement. In the position of positioning, the enforcement of reconciliation should be regarded as a civil contract reached by the parties in the execution of the civil law. In accordance with this agreement, the other party may require the execution of the original legal instrument, and may also require the other party to undertake a greater liability for breach of contract according to the agreement of the conciliation agreement, thereby increasing the cost of breach of contract by the executor and ensuring the rights of the applicant to have. Two is to clarify the execution process of the people's court. The Executive Court shall inform the parties of the legal consequences arising from the settlement of the settlement agreement between the parties; the people's court may, on the basis of full consideration of the interests of both parties, contribute to the agreement between the parties' obligations determined by the effective legal instruments in the implementation process. Three is to give the people's court to the reconciliation Association. The implementation of reconciliation is not only related to the interests of the applicant and the executor, but also to the efficiency of the execution of the court. It gives the court the right to review the settlement agreement. It can examine whether the conciliation agreements reached by the parties are not in accordance with the law, and prevent the malicious use of the conciliatory agreement to divide the other party. At the same time, it also avoids the repetition of the execution process due to the invalidity and revocation of the settlement agreement, and saves the judicial resources. Fourth, the application of the applicant's right to prosecute in accordance with the settlement agreement. The current law stipulates that a party does not perform the settlement agreement, and the people's court may apply for the resumption of the original legal text on the basis of the party. The implementation of a book, and the settlement agreement reached in the process of execution, is another new debt debt relationship between the applicant and the executor, which is not attached to the original legal instrument, so it also has the effect of a civil contract. The applicant may also bring a lawsuit on this basis to give the executor more. Severe punishment. Five is the establishment of a system of debtor's objection. In some more complicated cases, it is difficult for the people's court to examine the actual performance of the settlement agreement. At this time, the right to prosecute is given to the executor, and it will help to protect the legal rights of the applicant and the executor.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.18

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 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

2 李雙元;黃為之;;論和解合同[J];時(shí)代法學(xué);2006年04期

3 丁亮華;;執(zhí)行和解制度若干問題研究[J];人民司法;2006年12期

4 江必新;;民事訴訟法執(zhí)行程序修改應(yīng)關(guān)注的十大問題[J];人民司法;2011年17期

，

本文編號：1867031