發(fā)布時間：2018-05-13 02:12

  本文選題：民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣 + 效力�。� 參考：《西南政法大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣普遍存在于我國現(xiàn)階段司法實踐中，然而，我國的立法對于民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣的相關問題涉及鮮少，對其效力認定模糊、救濟機制的適用范圍界定也過于狹窄，《關于人民法院民事執(zhí)行中拍賣、變賣財產的規(guī)定2》中規(guī)定了法院有權對拍賣過程進行監(jiān)督，以及委托相關機構對拍賣財產進行評估，保留拍賣財產的最低價格的權利，但缺乏對民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣如何救濟的相關問題的規(guī)定，這一部分在當前實務中處理的方式紛繁復雜，因此為了使民事法律規(guī)范對民事執(zhí)行的規(guī)定更加完善和統(tǒng)一當前實務中的處理方式，樹立司法權威和保護權利人的合法利益，明確具體的民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣救濟方法顯得尤為重要。由于民事執(zhí)行拍賣法律關系的復雜性，權利不僅可能面臨來自權力機關的侵蝕，也可能會遭受到平等民事主體的惡意侵害，這可以從民事執(zhí)行拍賣存在違法拍賣、不當拍賣等得到印證。因而，在民事執(zhí)行拍賣程序進行中以及程序結束后，如何實現(xiàn)對權利的救濟顯得緊迫和必要，實踐中多采取的是非正式的信訪申訴程序進行救濟。這樣對關乎當事人及利害關系人權利義務關系的內容無跡可循，勢必會造成對當事人和利害關系人權利的侵害，為了維護其合法權益，使得權利不會因為程序上的不完善而受到損害，有必要對我國有關民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣的相關立法進行填補。本文以對民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣的內涵界定與具體表現(xiàn)類型為切入點，立足于我國現(xiàn)行的民事訴訟立法框架與理論界關于民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣效力認定與其所對應救濟機制的研究現(xiàn)狀，綜合域外兩大法系對相關理論與制度的研究成果，從而展開對民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣效力及其救濟相關問題的研究，并對我國民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣救濟機制的完善提出了一定的建議。 除了引言與結語外，本文主要由五個部分組成： 第一部分，對民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣的內涵及性質做基本的界定。通過對國內有關學者對民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣相關概念的比較總結及性質的梳理，筆者將民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣概括性界定為：民事執(zhí)行拍賣違背法律規(guī)定的要件、程序或方法，或者民事執(zhí)行拍賣行為雖然符合法律規(guī)定，但拍賣結果不符合債權人在實體法上的權利關系，，這種民事執(zhí)行拍賣行為稱為民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣。從而確定了本文所探討的民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣的內涵及研究其效力與救濟機制所立足的基本視角； 第二部分，民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣的效力認定。執(zhí)行拍賣在本質上屬于公法上的法律行為，其效力實際上也是一種法律的保護或約束，但相較于私法行為在法律保護或約束的內容上則體現(xiàn)更多的公法性及強制力。基于民事執(zhí)行行為和當事人行為標準，本文從效力角度將民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣類型化為違法拍賣和不當拍賣。違法執(zhí)行拍賣是對于執(zhí)行拍賣程序不合法而導致的拍賣結果上的否定性評價，但是并非所有違法拍賣一定導致無效的拍賣效力，只有在程序嚴重違反法律時，且必須在法定期間內提出的，才可能被認定為無效。不當執(zhí)行拍賣是因為不具有實體權利基礎，但根據(jù)執(zhí)行拍賣的公法效力，拍賣有效，受侵害權利主體可依拍賣救濟程序進行權利救濟； 第三部分，綜合比較研究了域外兩大法系關于民事執(zhí)行救濟機制立法的基本情況。通過對域外兩大法系幾個主要國家和地區(qū)的有關立法比較研究以及綜合評價，希望對建立我國民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣救濟機制有所裨益，結合我國本土的法律文化傳統(tǒng)及立法現(xiàn)狀，吸收域外相關制度之合理性方面來不斷深化和完善我國瑕疵拍賣救濟的理論與實務研究； 第四部分，針對我國現(xiàn)行立法和司法實踐中的民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣進行分析研究。本部分主要探討了我國對瑕疵拍賣救濟機制的立法狀況及實務操作的基本情況，并將研究視角聚焦于瑕疵拍賣救濟機制現(xiàn)有狀況之各層面出現(xiàn)的問題，結合國內外有關救濟機制的理論成果，分析我國立法中對于民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣相關配套制度的缺失狀況，以及制定一系列瑕疵拍賣救濟機制配套措施的正當性與必要性； 第五部分，基于前述的研究結論，從違法拍賣與不當拍賣兩個層面入手，對完善我國民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣救濟機制提出了相應配套程序的構思與設想，以期對我國民事執(zhí)行瑕疵拍賣救濟機制的縱深研究貢獻綿薄之力。
[Abstract]:The defective auction of civil execution is common in the current judicial practice of our country. However, there are few related issues in the legislation of the civil execution defect auction in our country. The identification of its effectiveness is vague and the scope of the application of relief mechanism is too narrow. The provisions of the regulations on the civil execution of the people's court in the civil execution of the auction and the sale of property are stipulated in 2>. The court has the right to supervise the process of the auction, and to entrust the relevant agencies to assess the property of the auction and retain the right to the lowest price of the auction property, but there is a lack of relevant provisions on how to remedy the defective auction of civil execution. This part is complicated in the current practice. It is particularly important that the provisions of the civil enforcement of civil execution are more perfect and unified, and the legal interests of the judicial authority and the protection of the rights of the rights holders are set up, and the specific relief method of the civil execution defect auction is particularly important. It may also suffer from the malicious infringement of the equal civil subject, which can be confirmed from illegal auctions and improper auctions in civil execution auctions. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to realize the relief of rights in civil execution auction and after the end of the procedure. In practice, the informal petition claims are adopted in practice. There is no trace in the content of the rights and obligations of the parties and the interested parties, which will cause the infringement of the rights of the parties and the interests of the interested parties. In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the rights will not be damaged because of the imperfect procedures, and it is necessary to make a pat on the civil execution defects in our country. The relevant legislation of the sale is filled. This article is based on the current civil litigation legislative framework and theoretical circles in China on the status of the validity of the civil execution defect auction and the corresponding relief mechanism of the civil execution defect auction. The two legal systems outside the country are based on the relevant theory. The research results of the system and the research on the validity of the civil execution defect auction and the relief related issues are carried out, and some suggestions are made for the improvement of the remedy mechanism of the civil execution defect auction in our country.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper consists of five parts:
The first part is the basic definition of the connotation and nature of the civil execution defective auction. Through the comparison and summary of the related concepts of civil execution defective auction in China, the author defines the civil execution defect auction as: the civil execution auction violates the legal requirements, procedures or methods, or Although the civil execution auction is in accordance with the law, the result of the auction does not conform to the creditor's right relationship in the substantive law. This kind of civil execution auction is called the civil execution defect auction, which determines the connotation of the civil execution defect auction discussed in this article and the basic perspective of the study of its effectiveness and relief mechanism.
The second part, the validity of the civil execution defective auction. The execution of the auction is essentially a legal act on the public law. Its effectiveness is actually a legal protection or constraint, but it embodies more public law and coercion than the act of private law in the content of legal protection or restraint. According to the standard of behavior, this article makes the civil execution defect auction type into illegal auction and improper auction from the perspective of effectiveness. Illegal execution auction is a negative evaluation on the results of auction resulting from the illegal execution of the auction procedure, but not all illegal auctions will result in invalid auction effect. Only in the procedure, the law violates the law seriously. When, and must be put forward in the legal period, it may be regarded as invalid. Improper execution of the auction is because it does not have the basis of substantive rights, but the auction is valid and the auction is effective. The subject of the infringed right can be remedied in accordance with the relief procedure of the auction.
In the third part, the basic situation of the legislation of the civil execution relief mechanism in the two foreign countries is compared and comparatively studied. Through the comparative study and the comprehensive evaluation of the relevant legislation of several major countries and regions in the two major legal systems abroad, we hope to be beneficial to the establishment of the remedy mechanism of the civil execution defect auction in our country, and combine the law of our country with the law of China. The theoretical and practical research on defective auction relief has been deepened and perfected by the legal culture tradition and legislation status and absorbing the rationality of extraterritorial related systems.
The fourth part analyzes the civil execution defect auction in China's current legislation and judicial practice. This part mainly discusses the basic situation of the legislative and practical operation of the remedy mechanism for the defective auction in China, and focuses on the problems arising from the various aspects of the existing conditions of the remedy mechanism of the defective auction. In accordance with the theoretical results of the relief mechanism at home and abroad, this paper analyzes the lack of relevant supporting systems for civil execution defective auction in China's legislation and the justification and necessity of establishing a series of supporting measures for the remedy mechanism of defective auction.
The fifth part, based on the previous research conclusions, starts with the two aspects of illegal auction and improper auction, and puts forward the conception and tentative plan for improving the remedy mechanism of civil execution defective auction in our country, with a view to contributing to the deep research on the remedy mechanism of civil execution in China.

【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10條

1 童兆洪,林翔榮;民事執(zhí)行救濟制度芻論[J];比較法研究;2002年03期

2 馬登科;程序上的執(zhí)行救濟與實體上的執(zhí)行救濟[J];湖北社會科學;2001年08期

3 曹士兵;;我國《物權法》關于抵押權實現(xiàn)的規(guī)定[J];法律適用;2008年Z1期

4 劉學在;朱建敏;;案外人異議制度的廢棄與執(zhí)行異議之訴的構建——兼評修改后的《民事訴訟法》第204條[J];法學評論;2008年06期

5 唐力;;論民事執(zhí)行的正當性與程序保障──以第三人異議之訴為中心[J];法學評論;2009年05期

6 高圣平;;擔保物權實行途徑之研究——兼及民事訴訟法的修改[J];法學;2008年02期

7 楊柳;;論執(zhí)行異議后救濟制度的完善[J];法制與社會;2012年12期

8 齊樹潔;陳賢貴;;不動產強制拍賣與第三人權益保護[J];甘肅政法學院學報;2010年04期

9 張衛(wèi)平;;案外人異議之訴[J];法學研究;2009年01期

10 陳賢貴;;不動產強制拍賣若干問題探討[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學院學報;2007年02期

本文編號：1881184