發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-25 18:19

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 債權(quán)公證文書 強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行 效率 公平　出處：《浙江大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證是大陸法系公證的一項(xiàng)基本制度。通俗來講,這是保護(hù)債權(quán)人的一種方式,即當(dāng)債務(wù)人對于債務(wù)的履行采取消極態(tài)度,或者履行的方式與約定的有所偏差,債權(quán)人就可以憑借強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證書和執(zhí)行證書向人民法院申請強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行,來取得自己應(yīng)有的利益。意思自治原則、訴權(quán)的任意性以及公正與效率的法律價(jià)值平衡是強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證債權(quán)文書的三大效力來源,構(gòu)成了該制度的理論基礎(chǔ)。針對公證債權(quán)文書的討論,逃不開效率與公正的利益沖突與價(jià)值平衡。在公證債權(quán)文書的強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行程序中,當(dāng)事人或者其他利害關(guān)系人可能就該文書涉及的法律關(guān)系提出異議,這是公證文書執(zhí)行中逃脫不掉的困境。當(dāng)這種情況出現(xiàn)時(shí),我們沒有理由將它拒絕在管轄之外,因?yàn)榉�律并沒有明確表示不歸司法管轄,有些甚至只能通過司法途徑救濟(jì)。其中,公證債權(quán)文書"確有錯(cuò)誤"而被裁定不予執(zhí)行,可能是爭議最大的一個(gè)問題。其具體情形需要仔細(xì)界定。為平衡各方當(dāng)事人的權(quán)益,必須要對強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證債權(quán)文書的范圍加以界定。目前的法律規(guī)則涉及公證債權(quán)文書抽象的范圍要件有二:債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系明確且無爭議、符合社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)交往的客觀需求。在實(shí)務(wù)中,關(guān)于擔(dān)保合同、雙務(wù)合同等是否可賦予強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證效力有諸多爭議。對于未到期債務(wù)、展期協(xié)議等是否能夠出具執(zhí)行證書也存在疑問。與人民法院對于"追債"的強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行能力相關(guān),公證債權(quán)文書的執(zhí)行管轄問題首當(dāng)其沖。公證債權(quán)文書與人民法院的裁判文書等沒有效力差別,因此法院對于它的審查也不會(huì)太嚴(yán)格,或者說可能不審查。但作為被執(zhí)行人自然不希望自己受到損害,因此他們會(huì)極力要求不予執(zhí)行公正債權(quán)文書。在這種種情況下,執(zhí)行救濟(jì)制度開始出現(xiàn)。這個(gè)制度的出現(xiàn),對于被執(zhí)行人也好,人民法院也好都有好處。為前者提供可實(shí)行的正當(dāng)程序和途徑,而為后者得到可以操作的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等。執(zhí)行救濟(jì)制度從無到有,有必要更加嚴(yán)格。簡言之,執(zhí)行救濟(jì)的核心制度包括執(zhí)行異議與執(zhí)行復(fù)議。
[Abstract]:Enforcement of notarization is a basic system of civil law notarization. Generally speaking, it is a way to protect creditors, that is, when the debtor takes a negative attitude towards the performance of the debt. Or the way to perform with the agreement of the deviation, the creditor can rely on the enforcement of notarization and execution certificate to the people's court to apply for enforcement, to obtain their due interests. The principle of autonomy of will. The arbitrariness of the right of action and the balance of the legal value of justice and efficiency are the three main sources of the validity of the compulsory enforcement of the notarized creditor's rights instrument, which constitute the theoretical basis of the system and the discussion of the notarized creditor's rights instrument. The conflict of interest and the balance of value between efficiency and justice cannot be avoided. In the enforcement procedure of the notarized creditor's rights instrument, the parties or other interested parties may object to the legal relationship involved in the instrument. This is a dilemma that cannot be escaped in the implementation of a notary instrument. When this happens, there is no reason to reject it from jurisdiction because the law does not explicitly state that it is not subject to jurisdiction. Some of them can only be remedied through judicial means. Among them, notarized creditor's rights documents are found not to be executed because they are "really wrong". May be one of the most controversial issues. The circumstances need to be carefully defined... to balance the interests of the parties. It is necessary to define the scope of compulsory enforcement of notarized creditor's rights instruments. There are two elements of the abstract scope of the current legal rules concerning notarized creditor's rights instruments: the relationship between creditor's rights and debts is clear and there is no dispute. Meet the objective needs of social and economic exchanges. In practice, there are many disputes about whether the guarantee contract, double service contract and so on can give the enforcement notarization effect. Whether the extension agreement can issue the certificate of execution is also doubtful. It is related to the ability of the people's court to enforce the "debt collection". The notarized creditor's rights document is the most important one. There is no difference between the notarized creditor's rights document and the people's court's judgment document, so the court will not be too strict about its examination. Or it may not be examined... but as executors naturally do not want to be harmed, they will urge that the instrument of fair claims not be enforced... in all these circumstances. Enforcement relief system began to appear. The emergence of this system for the execution of the people's court or the benefit of the former to provide the former with the implementation of due process and channels. In short, the core system of enforcement relief includes executive dissent and executive reconsideration.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D926.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 黃忠順;;論執(zhí)行力對訴的利益的阻卻——以公證債權(quán)文書為中心的分析[J];法學(xué)論壇;2016年04期

2 尤楊;藺楷毅;;公證債權(quán)文書強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行程序最新動(dòng)向解析[J];中國公證;2016年03期

3 陳凱;;強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證中抵押人不辦理抵押登記的法律后果[J];中國公證;2015年07期

4 薛立欣;;賦予借款合同強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行效力公證問題研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2014年26期

5 趙聰;;強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證債權(quán)文書范圍的法律分析[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2013年01期

6 朱伯玉;徐德臣;;論公證債權(quán)文書的功能擴(kuò)張與可訴性——以新制度主義變遷理論為契合點(diǎn)[J];東疆學(xué)刊;2011年04期

7 吳劍飛;;強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證若干問題的探討[J];中國司法;2009年03期

8 王康東;;從抵押權(quán)的實(shí)現(xiàn)方式談公證強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行效力 兼評《物權(quán)法》第195條第二款[J];中國公證;2008年04期

9 劉疆;;強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行公證爭議問題研究(上)[J];中國公證;2007年02期

，

本文編號：1463400