公证债权文书强制执行制度研究

发布时间：2018-01-25 18:19

本文关键词： 债权公证文书强制执行效率公平　出处：《浙江大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：强制执行公证是大陆法系公证的一项基本制度。通俗来讲,这是保护债权人的一种方式,即当债务人对于债务的履行采取消极态度,或者履行的方式与约定的有所偏差,债权人就可以凭借强制执行公证书和执行证书向人民法院申请强制执行,来取得自己应有的利益。意思自治原则、诉权的任意性以及公正与效率的法律价值平衡是强制执行公证债权文书的三大效力来源,构成了该制度的理论基础。针对公证债权文书的讨论,逃不开效率与公正的利益冲突与价值平衡。在公证债权文书的强制执行程序中,当事人或者其他利害关系人可能就该文书涉及的法律关系提出异议,这是公证文书执行中逃脱不掉的困境。当这种情况出现时,我们没有理由将它拒绝在管辖之外,因为法律并没有明确表示不归司法管辖,有些甚至只能通过司法途径救济。其中,公证债权文书"确有错误"而被裁定不予执行,可能是争议最大的一个问题。其具体情形需要仔细界定。为平衡各方当事人的权益,必须要对强制执行公证债权文书的范围加以界定。目前的法律规则涉及公证债权文书抽象的范围要件有二:债权债务关系明确且无争议、符合社会经济交往的客观需求。在实务中,关于担保合同、双务合同等是否可赋予强制执行公证效力有诸多争议。对于未到期债务、展期协议等是否能够出具执行证书也存在疑问。与人民法院对于"追债"的强制执行能力相关,公证债权文书的执行管辖问题首当其冲。公证债权文书与人民法院的裁判文书等没有效力差别,因此法院对于它的审查也不会太严格,或者说可能不审查。但作为被执行人自然不希望自己受到损害,因此他们会极力要求不予执行公正债权文书。在这种种情况下,执行救济制度开始出现。这个制度的出现,对于被执行人也好,人民法院也好都有好处。为前者提供可实行的正当程序和途径,而为后者得到可以操作的标准等。执行救济制度从无到有,有必要更加严格。简言之,执行救济的核心制度包括执行异议与执行复议。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：浙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D926.6

【参考文献】