居住权排除强制执行的规则研究  

Research on the Rules for the Exclusion of Enforcement of Residency

作　　者：刘颖 LIU Ying

机构地区：[1]北京航空航天大学法学院

出　　处：《北方法学》2024年第4期52-64,共13页Northern Legal Science

基　　金：中央高校基本科研业务费资助项目“参与分配的主体资格研究”(YWF-20-BJ-W-129)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：我国现行规范以及《民事强制执行法(草案)》在不动产强制变价中原则上对执行标的不动产上的用益物权采取承受主义,例外地对“中间的用益物权”采取涂销主义。作为《民法典》创设的新型用益物权,居住权亦适用关于用益物权的执行规则。以遗嘱或判决方式设立的居住权并非自登记时设立;以合同方式设立的居住权,即便已具备登记这一形式要件,却仍有可能因有效债权合意的欠缺,而不发生物权变动。可见,对于案外人是否对执行标的享有居住权,通过《民事诉讼法》第236条规定的执行行为异议程序的形式审查无法判定,唯有通过第238条规定的执行标的异议程序的实体审理才能判定。因此,主张以居住权排除强制执行的案外人,应当采用执行标的异议程序作为执行救济路径。Current Chinese regulations and the“Civil Enforcement Law(Draft)”adopt the doctrine of acceptance principle for usufructuary right in compulsory alterations of real property,with an exception for“intermediate usufructuary rights”adopting the extinguishment principle.The right of residence,a new usufructuary right under the Civil Code,is subject to relevant enforcement rules of usufructuary right.The right of residence created through will or court decision does not take effect upon registration;A contractually established right of residence,even with the requisite registration formalities fulfilled,may not result in a change of property rights in the absence of a valid consensus on the underlying debt.Determining a third party's right of residence in the enforcement subject requires substantive examination under the enforcement subject objection procedure in Article 238,rather than the procedural review in Article 236 of the Civil Procedure Law.A third party arguing that the right of residence precludes enforcement should use the procedure for objections to the object of enforcement as a route to enforcement relief.

关 键 词：居住权 用益物权 承受主义 涂销主义 案外人异议之诉 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学] D925.1[政治法律—法学]