【摘要】：在二審審理過程中,雙方當事人本著意思自治的精神,經過平等協商共同達成訴訟和解協議,上訴方撤回上訴二審程序終結。此后若一方當事人不履行或者不完全履行和解協議,另一方當事人申請強制執(zhí)行,那么此時的執(zhí)行依據應為一審判決還是二審中達成和解協議,理論界和實務界議論紛紛,其分歧的根源乃是對訴訟和解性質和效力的不同界定。最高人民法院2號指導性案例的裁判要點對此問題從立法的角度給以說明,在實踐中具有重要意義。 本文以研究最高人民法院2號指導性案例為視角,旨在充分分析該指導性案例的基礎之上,探討訴訟和解的性質與效力問題,從糾紛解決的過程為切入點支持“一行為兩性質說”,承認和解協議同時具有私法行為和訴訟行為兩方面的性質,并且從解決糾紛的根本目的重構訴訟和解協議訴訟法上的效力。以“司法確認”為出發(fā)點,從當事人申請、法官釋名、司法審查入手,建立訴訟和解的“公法方案”解決路徑,從而找到二審中達成訴訟和解得不到履行的解決辦法,為解決訴訟和解中的問題提出可行性立法建議,從而在實踐中使訴訟和解的功能最大化。
[Abstract]:In the process of second instance, in the spirit of autonomy of will, the parties reached an agreement on litigation settlement through equal consultation, and the appellant withdrew the procedure of second instance of appeal. After that, if one party fails to perform the settlement agreement or does not fully perform the settlement agreement, and the other party applies for enforcement, then the enforcement basis should be the settlement agreement reached in the first instance judgment or the second instance. The theoretical and practical circles have discussed one after another, and the root of their differences is the different definition of the nature and effectiveness of the litigation settlement. The main points of the Supreme people's Court No. 2 guiding case explain this problem from the legislative point of view, which is of great significance in practice. From the perspective of studying the No. 2 guiding case of the Supreme people's Court, this paper aims to fully analyze the guiding case, explore the nature and effectiveness of litigation settlement, support the theory of "one behavior and two nature" from the point of view of the process of dispute settlement, and recognize that the settlement agreement has the nature of both private law behavior and litigation behavior. And reconstruct the effectiveness of the procedural law of litigation settlement agreement from the fundamental purpose of dispute resolution. Based on the "judicial confirmation", starting with the application of the parties, the interpretation of the judge and the judicial review, this paper establishes the solution of the "public law scheme" of litigation settlement, so as to find the solution that the litigation settlement can not be fulfilled in the second instance, and puts forward some feasible legislative suggestions for solving the problems in the litigation settlement, so as to maximize the function of the litigation settlement in practice.
【學位授予單位】：華北電力大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 徐繼軍;;論執(zhí)行和解協議的效力與性質[J];法律適用;2006年09期

2 郭玉軍;孫敏潔;;美國訴訟和解與中國法院調解之比較研究[J];法學評論;2006年02期

3 何國強;;論民事訴訟二審中和解協議的性質——最高人民法院2號指導性案例評析[J];北方法學;2012年04期

4 吳俊;;指導案例2號的程序法理[J];法學;2013年01期

5 劉爍玲;;我國民事訴訟和解制度存在的問題及其完善[J];江西社會科學;2009年03期

6 鮑玉潔;;淺議民事訴訟和解制度[J];科教導刊(中旬刊);2010年08期

7 章武生,吳澤勇;論訴訟和解[J];法學研究;1998年02期

8 呂輝;;論我國和解協議的效力重構[J];學理論;2010年31期

9 王亞新;;一審判決效力與二審中的訴訟外和解協議——最高人民法院公布的2號指導案例評析[J];法學研究;2012年04期

10 李瑾;;民事訴訟和解制度的比較分析研究[J];齊齊哈爾大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2007年05期

，

本文編號：2498703