【摘要】：在二審審理過(guò)程中,雙方當(dāng)事人本著意思自治的精神,經(jīng)過(guò)平等協(xié)商共同達(dá)成訴訟和解協(xié)議,上訴方撤回上訴二審程序終結(jié)。此后若一方當(dāng)事人不履行或者不完全履行和解協(xié)議,另一方當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行,那么此時(shí)的執(zhí)行依據(jù)應(yīng)為一審判決還是二審中達(dá)成和解協(xié)議,理論界和實(shí)務(wù)界議論紛紛,其分歧的根源乃是對(duì)訴訟和解性質(zhì)和效力的不同界定。最高人民法院2號(hào)指導(dǎo)性案例的裁判要點(diǎn)對(duì)此問(wèn)題從立法的角度給以說(shuō)明,在實(shí)踐中具有重要意義。 本文以研究最高人民法院2號(hào)指導(dǎo)性案例為視角,旨在充分分析該指導(dǎo)性案例的基礎(chǔ)之上,探討訴訟和解的性質(zhì)與效力問(wèn)題,從糾紛解決的過(guò)程為切入點(diǎn)支持“一行為兩性質(zhì)說(shuō)”,承認(rèn)和解協(xié)議同時(shí)具有私法行為和訴訟行為兩方面的性質(zhì),并且從解決糾紛的根本目的重構(gòu)訴訟和解協(xié)議訴訟法上的效力。以“司法確認(rèn)”為出發(fā)點(diǎn),從當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)、法官釋名、司法審查入手,建立訴訟和解的“公法方案”解決路徑,從而找到二審中達(dá)成訴訟和解得不到履行的解決辦法,為解決訴訟和解中的問(wèn)題提出可行性立法建議,從而在實(shí)踐中使訴訟和解的功能最大化。
[Abstract]:In the process of second instance, in the spirit of autonomy of will, the parties reached an agreement on litigation settlement through equal consultation, and the appellant withdrew the procedure of second instance of appeal. After that, if one party fails to perform the settlement agreement or does not fully perform the settlement agreement, and the other party applies for enforcement, then the enforcement basis should be the settlement agreement reached in the first instance judgment or the second instance. The theoretical and practical circles have discussed one after another, and the root of their differences is the different definition of the nature and effectiveness of the litigation settlement. The main points of the Supreme people's Court No. 2 guiding case explain this problem from the legislative point of view, which is of great significance in practice. From the perspective of studying the No. 2 guiding case of the Supreme people's Court, this paper aims to fully analyze the guiding case, explore the nature and effectiveness of litigation settlement, support the theory of "one behavior and two nature" from the point of view of the process of dispute settlement, and recognize that the settlement agreement has the nature of both private law behavior and litigation behavior. And reconstruct the effectiveness of the procedural law of litigation settlement agreement from the fundamental purpose of dispute resolution. Based on the "judicial confirmation", starting with the application of the parties, the interpretation of the judge and the judicial review, this paper establishes the solution of the "public law scheme" of litigation settlement, so as to find the solution that the litigation settlement can not be fulfilled in the second instance, and puts forward some feasible legislative suggestions for solving the problems in the litigation settlement, so as to maximize the function of the litigation settlement in practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華北電力大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐繼軍;;論執(zhí)行和解協(xié)議的效力與性質(zhì)[J];法律適用;2006年09期

2 郭玉軍;孫敏潔;;美國(guó)訴訟和解與中國(guó)法院調(diào)解之比較研究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2006年02期

3 何國(guó)強(qiáng);;論民事訴訟二審中和解協(xié)議的性質(zhì)——最高人民法院2號(hào)指導(dǎo)性案例評(píng)析[J];北方法學(xué);2012年04期

4 吳俊;;指導(dǎo)案例2號(hào)的程序法理[J];法學(xué);2013年01期

5 劉爍玲;;我國(guó)民事訴訟和解制度存在的問(wèn)題及其完善[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2009年03期

6 鮑玉潔;;淺議民事訴訟和解制度[J];科教導(dǎo)刊(中旬刊);2010年08期

7 章武生,吳澤勇;論訴訟和解[J];法學(xué)研究;1998年02期

8 呂輝;;論我國(guó)和解協(xié)議的效力重構(gòu)[J];學(xué)理論;2010年31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(hào)指導(dǎo)案例評(píng)析[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年04期

10 李瑾;;民事訴訟和解制度的比較分析研究[J];齊齊哈爾大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：2498703