發(fā)布時間：2018-05-13 23:33

  本文選題：財(cái)產(chǎn)保全 + 保全異議��； 參考：《沈陽師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：財(cái)產(chǎn)保全制度本是立法者在民事訴訟中設(shè)計(jì)的為維護(hù)當(dāng)事人利益，解決司法實(shí)踐中“執(zhí)行難”問題的一項(xiàng)重要制度，然而由于我國民事訴訟法對于保全制度從程序啟動到程序執(zhí)行方面的規(guī)定的缺陷，加之市場交易類型日益的復(fù)雜化，導(dǎo)致財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤案件時有發(fā)生。面對因財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤受損害的當(dāng)事人請求追究申請人賠償責(zé)任時，人民法院經(jīng)常因?yàn)槿狈γ鞔_的法律依據(jù)可以參考，對申請人的損害賠償責(zé)任不知如何認(rèn)定，從而出現(xiàn)各地方法院雖然審理的是同一類型案件但是判決相互矛盾的局面。 對于因申請財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤引起的損害賠償案件，其爭議之處主要在于兩方面：其一，財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤如何認(rèn)定；其二，財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤引起的損害賠償責(zé)任的性質(zhì)和主體如何認(rèn)定。經(jīng)過分析，這兩點(diǎn)爭議相互交織，因?yàn)樨?cái)產(chǎn)保全是人民法院根據(jù)當(dāng)事人的申請而作出裁定并執(zhí)行的，所以財(cái)產(chǎn)保全是否錯誤一方面要看法院的保全裁定作出及執(zhí)行是否合法，，另外一方面要看當(dāng)事人的申請行為是否合乎法律規(guī)定。 財(cái)產(chǎn)保全行為是以法院為主體而進(jìn)行的，對于保全發(fā)生錯誤法院可能會承擔(dān)一定的責(zé)任。本案例中，人民法院在保全程序的啟動、實(shí)施和保全異議三個階段的行為均合乎現(xiàn)行程序法和實(shí)體法的規(guī)定，因而無需承擔(dān)保全錯誤引起的損害賠償責(zé)任。 財(cái)產(chǎn)保全是因當(dāng)事人的申請行為而啟動。我國《民事訴訟法》規(guī)定了當(dāng)事人申請?jiān)V中財(cái)產(chǎn)保全行為諸多條件。當(dāng)事人的申請如果不符合這些條件應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定為申請錯誤，故當(dāng)事人應(yīng)當(dāng)為錯誤的申請行為給被被申請人造成的財(cái)產(chǎn)損失承擔(dān)賠償責(zé)任，結(jié)合我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定，可以認(rèn)定申請人應(yīng)當(dāng)為申請財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤行為造成的損害承擔(dān)一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:The property preservation system is an important system designed by legislators in civil litigation to safeguard the interests of the parties and solve the problem of "difficult execution" in judicial practice. However, due to the defects in the provisions of the Civil procedure Law on the preservation system from the start of the procedure to the implementation of the procedure, coupled with the increasing complexity of the type of market transactions, property preservation errors occur from time to time. When a party who has suffered damage to property preservation mistakes requests that the applicant be investigated for liability for compensation, the people's court often does not know how to determine the applicant's liability for damages because of the lack of a clear legal basis for reference. Thus, the local courts try the same kind of cases, but the judgments contradict each other. For the case of damages caused by the application for property preservation error, the dispute mainly lies in two aspects: first, how to identify the property preservation error; second, the nature of the damage compensation liability caused by the property preservation error and how to determine the subject. After analysis, these two disputes are intertwined, because property preservation is ruled and executed by the people's court on the basis of the application of the parties, so whether the property preservation is wrong or not depends on whether the court's order on preservation is made and whether it is lawful to execute it. On the other hand, it is necessary to see whether the parties' application is in accordance with the law. The property preservation act is based on the court, and the court may bear certain responsibility for the preservation error. In this case, the actions of the people's court in the three stages of the initiation, implementation and objection of preservation procedure conform to the provisions of the current procedural law and substantive law, so it is not necessary to bear the liability for damages caused by the preservation error. Property preservation is initiated as a result of the party's application. The Civil procedure Law of our country stipulates many conditions of property preservation in the application of litigants. If the application of a party does not meet these conditions, it should be deemed to be a mistake of the application, so the party shall be liable for the property damage caused by the wrong application to the respondent, in conjunction with the relevant provisions of our country's Tort liability Law, It may be concluded that the applicant should assume general tort liability for damages caused by the wrong property preservation application.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳現(xiàn)杰;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》一般條款中的違法性判斷要件[J];法律適用;2010年07期

2 徐子良;;論財(cái)產(chǎn)保全異議的審查與申請保全錯誤的賠償——兼析一起因財(cái)產(chǎn)保全引發(fā)的損害賠償案[J];法學(xué);2006年12期

3 王暉;;淺論財(cái)產(chǎn)保全申請錯誤[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬刊);2009年07期

4 沈文宏;;芻議訴訟保全審查程序的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)及其限制[J];法制與社會;2010年01期

5 曾勇;;淺析我國訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的不足與制度完善[J];法制與社會;2011年23期

6 蔡維力;吳曉靜;;論現(xiàn)行財(cái)產(chǎn)保全制度的三大缺陷及其弊害[J];甘肅社會科學(xué);2012年02期

7 黃文藝;;比較法視域下我國民事保全制度的修改與完善[J];比較法研究;2012年05期

8 陳廣華;財(cái)產(chǎn)保全中被申請人利益的保護(hù)——以申請財(cái)產(chǎn)保全錯誤為契機(jī)[J];求索;2005年05期

9 戴曙;;申請執(zhí)行前的財(cái)產(chǎn)保全制度及其完善——以當(dāng)事人利益平衡與緩解執(zhí)行難為視角[J];法治論叢(上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2009年02期

10 丁小巍;汪毅;;我國民事訴訟保全制度的現(xiàn)狀及發(fā)展[J];政法學(xué)刊;2006年01期

本文編號：1885344