实体性执行异议程序之比较研究与立法完善

Comparative Study and Chinese Legislation Improvement on Procedures for Substantive Execution Objection

综观大陆法系之代表性立法例,就确定判决之瑕疵救济程序主要规定有四种途径:再审之诉、第三人撤销之诉、执行异议之诉,以及特别上诉程序。其中,'执行异议之诉'就相当于我国民事诉讼立法中的'实体性执行异议程序'。域外立法中的执行异议之诉制度由两部分构成:'债务人执行异议之诉'和'第三人执行异议之诉'。我国2007年修改之后的《民事诉讼法》,第204条规定的实体性执行异议程序只确立了案外第三人执行异议之诉,并未确立债务人执行异议之诉,而是将其纳入再审程序的范畴。因此,将来全面修订民事诉讼法典时,应在现行立法之第三人执行异议之诉的基础上,确立债务人执行异议之诉制度,并统一其程序规则。

Reviewing representative legislation of civil action in Civil Law,there are four kinds of procedure to remedy the flaw of definitive civil judgments:Retrial Action,Recall Action of the third party,Execution Objection Action and Special Appeal.Among these four,Execution Objection Action is equivalent to the procedure for substantive execution objection in Chinese civil action legislation.In foreign civil action legislation,the system of Execution Objection Action consists of Execution Objection Action of the execution debtor and Execution Objection Action of the third party.In China’s Civil Procedure Law,after 2007’s amendments,the procedure for substantive execution objection in Article 204 established the system of Execution Objection Action by the third party only.Execution Objection Action of the execution debtor is still attributed to the procedure for supervision upon adjudication.So,the complete amendments of our civil action legislation should establish the system of Execution Objection Action of the execution debtor as supplement for Execution Objection Action by the third party and unify the procedures for both.