论民事执行审查模式的转型与证明机制的强化  

Transforming the Review Model and Strengthening the Proof Mechanism of Civil Enforcement

作　　者：曹建军 Cao Jianjun

机构地区：[1]中央财经大学法学院

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（诉讼法学、司法制度）》2023年第10期105-120,共16页Procedural Law And Judicial Systems

基　　金：2021年度教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“民法典实施与证明规范配套研究”(21YJC820002)的研究成果。

摘　　要：我国《民事强制执行法(草案)》有关执行要件事实的规范主要是从法院审查的视角出发,易引起立案审查、执行审查、实体审理的模糊与混同,且在外部制衡缺失之时很难贯彻“实体一程序”的二元区分标准。民事执行的审查模式存在职权主义取证范围过度扩张的问题,有必要从当事人证明的外部视角为要件事实的快速查明提供事实信息与证据线索,遇制职权调查的扩张趋势并推进程序层面的审执分离。执行当事人、实体请求权、执行依据的实体审查程序应当明确当事人的应证事实、证明程序和证据方法,实体审理应在言辞辩论而非询问听证的基础上进行充分审理;执行受理要件的程序性审查有必要提高立案庭不予受理裁定的标准,执行裁决要件的审查程序应明确适用范围且区分申请与异议。执行要件事实的审查体系在审查标准、救济竞合、统一裁决方面的规范化与证明机制在权利、程序、内容方面的充实化,将有利于实现以执行法官为核心的分权改革机制和以执行救济制度为重点的体系化制度格局。The regulation of executive elementary facts in the Draft Civil Enforcement Law,by mainly taking courts'review behavior as its starting point,can easily lead to the problem of ambiguity and confusion among case review,executive review and substantive hearing.In the absence of external checks and balances,it is difficult to implement the binary standard for distinguishing between substantive elements and procedural elements.The review model of civil enforcement also has the problem of excessive expansion of the authority and scope of investigation and evidence collection by courts.The current centralized organizational structure and review model supplemented by substantiation cannot create effective internal constraints on courts'investigative authority.As a result,it is necessary for the legislation on enforcement to curb the expansion of courts'ex officio investigation from the external perspective of parties'proof,so as to provide factual information and evidentiary clues for rapid identification of material facts and further promote the separation of trial procedure and enforcement procedure.Substantive executive elementary facts include change and addition of parties,change and extinction of substantive claims,and the clarity of payment content of an enforcement basis.The fundamental difference between objection procedure and litigation proceeding lies in the proof procedure and method of evidence.If a party cannot achieve a high degree of probability in the formal review of his proof through limited documentary evidence and other evidence,he should initiate a dissent action of execution with a full oral argument and adequate evidence investigation.This method of differentiation can strengthen the diversion function of the objection procedure and prevent it from being turned into a litigation procedure.On the other hand,procedural enforcement elementary facts mainly include the elementary fact of case acceptance and the elementary fact of procedural legality.The case accepting division of a court should raise

关 键 词：民事执行法 审执分离 要件事实 执行审查 执行救济 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]