合同继续履行判决实现障碍之解决——兼论2015《民事诉讼法解释》“一事不再理”之适用

Solutions to the Implementation of Court Judgment of Continuation of Contract Fulfillment——Application of "No Repeated Hearing" in Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law(2015)

继续履行作为违约责任方式之一,具有适用的优先性。但《合同法》第110条规定的情形在实践中屡屡出现,该种生效裁判实现障碍不断质疑着合同继续履行的基础,这就需要结合继续履行的性质对合同继续履行判决实现障碍作类型化分析。另一方面,继续履行生效裁判实现障碍所生之继发性纠纷,使得本就颇具争议的"一事不再理"原则更加彰显,生效裁判效力稳定性与当事人诉权保障间的"战争"不断升级。虽然最高人民法院对继续履行判决实现障碍所生之继发性纠纷保持积极的受理态度,但实践中该类案件个体情况纷繁复杂,并非所有继发性纠纷都可以回避"一事不再理"原则的适用,因而最高院的态度并不能对类似案件形成全面指导。如何协调继发性纠纷与"一事不再理"原则的关系,以及重塑继发性纠纷可以新诉的判断标准便成为当务之急。2015《民事诉讼法解释》就"一事不再理原则"所增设的具体规定,或许将成为解决上述继发性纠纷的良方。

Continuation of fulfillment is one of the punishments for failure in contract fulfillment and is of prior applicability. However, problems often occur in practice which makes it difficult to implement such court judgment. This challenges the legal foundation of ＂continuation of contract fulfillment＂, and also requires classification of the difficulties in implementing such court judgment. Besides, these obstacles to the implementation generate further controversy or law suits between relevant parties, which challenges the principle of ＂No Repeated Hearing＂. Although the Supreme Court encourages accepting those further controversies or law suits, this attitude does not make a universal guidance in practice as such cases are too involved and varied. Therefore, it is of urgent need to add new criteria for dealing with such consequent controversies and law suits.