【作者】 李芳；

【导师】 涂书田；

【作者基本信息】 南昌大学 ， 民事诉讼法学， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 我国执行程序没有为被执行人实体权利提供专门的执行救济途径。被执行人只能通过执行异议、另行起诉、再审之诉来救济其实体权利。但是司法实践中,对于执行异议能否处理被执行人的实体争议,各地法院做法不一,有的以执行程序不处理实体为由驳回当事人的请求,有的法院仅是作简单形式审查。而被执行人另行起诉的,该诉讼结果不会对原执行依据的执行力产生影响,也就是说被执行人另行起诉得到胜诉判决后,无法据此请求法院停止原执行依据的执行。而再审之诉是对生效法律裁判的纠错程序,如果不是因为原裁判有错误导致被执行人实体权利受到侵害的,那就不属于再审之诉的受案范围,被执行人也不能通过再审之诉获得救济。所以执行异议、另行起诉、再审之诉都不能对为被执行人的实体权利提供救济渠道。我国的司法实践证明,建立被执行人异议之诉既有必要也具有可行性。一是被执行人在执行程序中存在需要保护的实体权利,例如原执行依据债务已全部或部分履行完毕导致原执行依据执行力消灭,或者原执行依据发生阻却执行力的事由等,有必要为被执行人设立合法的救济渠道;二是现行民事执行程序出现了被执行人权利救济“空白”地带,为完善执行救济制度体系,平等保护各方当事人合法权益,也有必要建立被执行人异议之诉。另外,在我国构建被执行人异议之诉具有“审执分离”原则的理论支撑;司法实践中有类似异议之诉的成功经验。所以在我国建立被执行人异议之诉具有可行性。本文从理论和实践两方面对被执行人异议之诉的性质、地位进行分析,结合我国的实际情况,提出建立被执行人异议之诉的具体设想。一是认为被执行人异议之诉是救济之诉,以新实体权利义务关系为诉讼标的,其作用在于排除原执行依据执行力,从而实现被执行人实体利益的保护。二是认为被执行人异议之诉是一种执行程序中的特殊民事诉讼程序,因其设立在执行程序中,与普通民事诉讼程序相比具有特殊性。三是突出其救济的补充性,不影响现行的执行救济体系。对此应当在以下方面进行完善:明确该诉的适格当事人,明确执行异议适用对象与条件,异议事由及其发生时间;明确该诉不以执行异议为前置程序。四是为防止恶意被执行人滥用被执行异议之诉,设置了滥诉惩戒制度。更多还原

【Abstract】 Our execution procedures do not provide specific execution remedy for the rights of the subject entity.The person subjected to execution can only remedy his substantive rights through the execution of objection,separate prosecution or retrial.However,in judicial practice,local courts have different practices on whether the execution objection can deal with the entity dispute of the person subjected to execution.Some courts reject the request of the party on the grounds that the execution procedure does not deal with the entity,and some courts only conduct a simple form of examination.If the person subjected to execution brings a separate suit,the result of the suit will not affect the execution force of the original execution basis,that is to say,after the person subjected to execution brings a separate suit and wins the judgment,he cannot request the court to stop the execution of the original execution basis accordingly.The action of retrial is the procedure of correcting the errors of the effective legal judgment.If the entity rights of the person subjected to execution are not infringed due to the error of the original judgment,it does not belong to the scope of accepting the case of the retrial action,and the person subjected to execution cannot obtain relief through the action of retrial.Therefore,the objection to execution,separate prosecution and retrial can not provide relief channels for the entity rights of the person subjected to execution.In our country,the judicial practice has proved that it is necessary and feasible to establish litigation of the executant’s objection.First,the entity rights of the person subject to enforcement need to be protected in the execution procedure.For example,the original execution basis has been fully or partially performed,leading to the elimination of the original execution basis,or the causes of the execution basis impeding the execution force,etc.,it is necessary to establish legal relief channels for the person subject to enforcement.Second,there is a "blank" area for the relief of the rights of the person subjected to execution in the current civil enforcement procedure.In order to perfect the system of relief for execution and equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of all parties,it is also necessary to establish the objection lawsuit of the person subjected to execution.In addition,in our country,constructing the lawsuit of the execution of dissent has theoretical support of the principle of "separation of execution";There is successful experience of similar dissenting action in judicial practice.So in our country,it is feasible to establish a lawsuit of execution objection.This paper analyzes the nature and status of the litigation of the dissident from both theory and practice,combined with actual situation in our country,and puts forward some concrete tentative ideas about establishing the litigation of the dissident.The first is that the action of the object of objection of the person subject to enforcement is the action of relief,which takes the relationship of rights and obligations of the new entity as the object of action,and its function is to exclude the original execution basis of execution force,so as to realize the protection of the entity interests of the person subject to enforcement.Second,it holds that the action against the person subjected to execution is a special civil procedure in the execution procedure,because it is set up in the execution procedure,compared with the ordinary civil procedure,it has its particularity.The third is to highlight the complementary nature of its relief without affecting the current enforcement relief system.It should be improved in the following aspects: clarify the appropriate parties of the action,clarify the object and condition of the objection,the cause of the objection and its occurrence time;Make it clear that the action is not subject to the execution of objections as the pre-procedure.Fourthly,in order to prevent the maliciously executed person from abusing the action of the executed objection,the punishment system of excessive action is set up.更多还原