案外人异议之诉中权益冲突的判准及其展开——以“股权代持”纠纷为中心  

The Standard and Development of Conflicts of Rights and Interests in the Action Filed by Dissent Outsiders on the Enforcement with a Focus on the Case of “Share Holding on Behalf of Others”

作　　者：李晓倩[1,2] LI Xiaoqian

机构地区：[1]吉林大学法学院 [2]吉林大学司法数据应用研究中心

出　　处：《中国政法大学学报》2023年第2期147-159,共13页Journal Of CUPL

基　　金：2021年度吉林大学学科交叉融合创新项目“人工智能辅助民事案件同案同判研究”(项目批准号:JLUXKJC2021ZZ17)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：“股权代持”案外人异议之诉中,案外人享有的民事权益是否足以排除强制执行,存在“肯定说”与“否定说”的分歧。最高人民法院的裁判呈现出明显的立场冲突,基于对319篇涉股权代持裁判文书的分析,大多数法院倾向于驳回案外人的诉讼请求。“股权代持”案外人异议之诉中的权利冲突,发生在申请执行人程序性的执行利益与案外人的实体性权利之间。以此为逻辑起点,依据民法既有权利位阶规范无法得出结论,故应诉诸于利益衡量。揆诸具体权利的保护,因“秩序安定”更能够代表社会公共利益,因此原则上应支持“否定说”,仅在申请执行人不具有信赖利益以及股权代持的形成不可归责于案外人等情形存在时,案外人的权利可以排除强制执行。In the action filed by dissent outsiders on the enforcement where equity is held by others, there is a difference between the “affirmative” and “negative” views on whether an outsider has the civil interest sufficient to exclude compulsory enforcement. The judgments delivered by the Supreme People’s Court present obvious conflict on position. Based on the analysis of 319 judgment documents, most courts tend to reject the claims of outsiders.The conflict of rights in the action filed by dissent outsiders where equity is held by others occurred between the procedural enforcement interests of the person who has applied for enforcement and the substantive rights of the outsider. With this as the logical foundation, it is impossible to draw a conclusion according to the existing right hierarchy norms of the civil law, so we should appeal to the interest measurement. Considering “order and stability” can better represent social public interests, in principle, we should support the “negation theory”. Only when the person who applied for enforcement does not have the trust interest and the formation of the equity proxy cannot be attributed to the outsider, the outsider has the right to exclude compulsory enforcement.

关 键 词：案外人异议之诉 执行利益 股权代持 外观主义 

分 类 号：D925[政治法律—诉讼法学]