论到期债权执行程序中的两种制度安排  

On the Two Institutional Arrangements in the Enforcement Procedure for Due Claims

作　　者：伍桃 

机构地区：[1]西北政法大学民商法学院,陕西 西安

出　　处：《争议解决》2024年第3期192-199,共8页Dispute Settlement

摘　　要：到期债权执行程序的保全和执行阶段以向第三人发出履行到期债务通知为衔接,根据第三人是否异议后续程序呈现出两种制度安排。在第三人提出异议之情形,《强执法草案》设置了债权收取之诉,此制度安排下需回应收取之诉与代位权诉讼的功用问题。在第三人于履行通知指定期限内未提出异议又未履行之情形,不同程序构造下的处理亦有不同,对第三人为强制执行的法理基础可分为程序构造包含或续接执行名义的设计。总体上,我国到期债权的执行程序与德日的相关制度安排有实质性区别,适应第三人是否提出异议作出的两种程序设计在运行上出现了某些偏差,针对第三人的执行名义,目前可将强制执行裁定与履行令视为整体,共同作为执行名义。The preservation and enforcement phases of the due claim enforcement procedure are connected by a notice to the third party to perform the debt due, and the subsequent procedure presents two institutional arrangements depending on whether the third party objects or not. In the case of a third party’s objection, the Draft Enforcement Law sets up a claim for the collection of the claim, and this institutional arrangement needs to respond to the question of the utility of the claim for collection and the subrogation of litigation . In the third party in the fulfillment of the notice of the specified period of time did not object to and failed to perform the situation, different procedural structure of the treatment is also different, the third party for the legal basis of enforcement can be divided into procedural structure contains or renewed basis of enforcement. Generally speaking, the enforcement procedures for due claim in China are substantially different from the relevant institutional arrangements in Germany and Japan, and the two procedural designs adapted to whether or not the third party has filed an objection have shown certain deviations in operation, so that the enforcement of the third party’s enforcement name can be considered as a whole, and the enforcement decision and the order of performance can be taken as the enforcement name together at the present time.

关 键 词：到期债权 执行名义 变价程序 收取诉讼 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]