实体法和程序法双重视角下错误汇款排除强制执行的效力研究  

Study on the Exclusion of Enforcement of Erroneous Remittance from the Dual Perspective of Substantive and Procedural Law

作　　者：刘学在[1] 尹思媛 Liu Xuezai;Yin Siyuan(School of Law,Wuhan University,Wuhan Hubei,430072)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《河南财经政法大学学报》2023年第4期126-134,共9页Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law

基　　金：2021年国家社科基金重大项目“民事司法程序现代化问题研究”(项目编号:21&ZD205)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：当错误汇款至另案被执行人账户时,错误汇款人能否以“错误汇款”为由排除对被执行人财产的强制执行,法律规定不明,司法裁判结果存在分歧,无论是支持排除强制执行抑或相反的裁判之论证逻辑均存在瑕疵。从法教义学的视角分析,错误汇款人的请求权性质存在物权性解释路径和债权性解释路径,物权性解释路径忽略了转账汇款中银行的法律地位,债权性解释路径可堪合理。错误汇款返还请求权性质系债权请求权,根据案外人异议之诉的制度逻辑,案外人与申请执行人实际上不存在权利冲突,故不足以排除强制执行。从利益衡量的视角考察,错误汇款排除强制执行同样正当性不足。When the erroneous remittance is sent to the account of the executor in another case,it is unclear whether the erroneous remitter can exclude the enforcement of the executor’s property on the ground of“erroneous remittance”,and the judicial decisions are divided,since the logic of the decision supporting the exclusion of enforcement or the opposite is flawed.From a legal doctrinal point of view,the nature of the erroneous remitter’s claim is subject to both a property-based interpretation path and a claim-based interpretation path,of which the property-based interpretation ignores the legal position of the bank in the transfer of money,and the creditor-based interpretation is reasonable.The nature of the claim for the return of erroneous remittances is a claim for credit.According to the institutional logic of lawsuit against execution,there is no actual conflict of rights between the erroneous remitter and the applicant for enforcement,so it is not enough to preclude enforcement.From the perspective of interest weighing,the erroneous remittance preclusion for enforcement is also not justified.

关 键 词：错误汇款 银行存款 案外人异议之诉 占有即所有 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]