The enforcement and reconciliation system is the embodiment and application of party autonomy in the enforcement stage. It is of great significance for resolving conflicts between parties, handling disputes in a timely and effective manner, solving difficult enforcement problems, and thus maintaining social stability. . There are few provisions on the execution of settlement agreements in our country's current laws, which has resulted in disputes over the handling of execution of settlement agreements in judicial practice. As a legal practitioner, research on this issue has certain practical significance.
1. The execution of a settlement agreement is a civil act in which both parties reach an agreement on a voluntary basis, negotiate on an equal basis, and change the rights and obligations determined by the execution basis in accordance with the law during the execution process of the People's Court. It does not necessarily mean that a settlement agreement reached by the parties themselves is an executed settlement agreement. If the party subject to execution requests to terminate the execution on the grounds that the settlement agreement has been completed, the People's Court shall review the nature of the settlement agreement.
In the execution ruling of Xuyi Zhongjia Real Estate Co., Ltd., Zhang Guobo and Xuyi Zhongjia Real Estate Co., Ltd. (2016) Su Zhifu No. 15 heard by the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court, the Jiangsu High Court held that Zhongjia Real Estate Co., Ltd. The "Settlement Agreement" signed by the company and Zhang Guobo on July 15, 2015 was not an execution of the settlement agreement. Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates: "During enforcement, if the two parties reach an agreement on their own settlement, the enforcement officer shall record the contents of the agreement in the transcript and have it signed by both parties. or stamped", therefore the execution settlement agreement should be formed during execution. In this case, the "Settlement Agreement" was formed during the first-instance litigation. Its nature does not belong to the execution of the settlement agreement, and it cannot be applied to the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" 466 Article 17 stipulates that “if the settlement agreement has been fulfilled, the people’s court will not resume execution.” What's more, Zhongjia Company and Zhang Guobo have a major dispute over whether the "Settlement Agreement" has been fulfilled. This dispute does not fall within the scope of the execution procedure and should be resolved by the parties concerned.
Zhuhai Qianshan Industrial Group Co., Ltd. and Zhuhai Huafu Hehe Investment Development Co., Ltd., the Real Estate Development Department of Zhuhai Special Economic Zone Qianshan Industrial Group Co., Ltd., and Zhuhai Qianshan Fuel Supply Company were heard in the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court. Other enforcement review cases (2014) Yue Gao Fa Zhi Fu Zi No. 93 Enforcement Ruling, the Guangdong Provincial High Court held that regarding the Real Estate Transfer Agreement signed by Huafu Hehe Company, the applicant for execution, and Qiangong Group Company, the person subject to execution Book". Although this point is not the focus of controversy in this case, its determination affects the outcome of this case. Its effect belongs to another legal relationship. If the parties have disputes over it, they can resolve it through other channels. Since the agreement was reached outside the court's enforcement procedures and has not been submitted to the court, it does not constitute an execution of the settlement agreement. In this execution review There is no review in the process.
2. If the person applying for execution requests to resume execution of the original effective legal document and pay interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance, it should be based on the premise that the person subject to execution does not perform or does not fully perform the settlement agreement. When the enforcement court examines whether to resume execution and whether to support the delay in payment of debt interest, the enforcement court should ascertain the basic facts such as the reasons and responsibilities for the failure to complete the enforcement settlement agreement.
In the Supreme People’s Court’s ruling on the execution review of Bayannur No. 2 Construction and Installation Co., Ltd. and Shizuishan No. 21 Middle School (2017) Supreme Law Enforcement Supervisor No. 18, the Supreme People’s Court The court held that if the person applying for execution requests to resume execution of the original effective legal document and pay interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance on the grounds that the person subject to execution has not performed the settlement agreement, the premise should be that the person subject to execution has not performed or fully performed the settlement agreement. If the settlement If the agreement has been fully performed, or if the failure to perform is due to the fault of the person applying for execution, execution should not be resumed, let alone the issue of calculating debt interest during the period of delayed performance. If the settlement agreement is not fully performed due to the fault of the person subject to execution, the execution of the original effective legal document shall be resumed, and the interest on the debt during the delayed performance period shall be calculated from the expiration date of the performance period specified in the original effective legal document. In addition, if the settlement agreement has not been fully performed, if both the person applying for execution and the person subject to execution are at fault, the calculation of debt interest during the delayed performance period should be based on their respective faults.
As far as this case is concerned, the Shizuishan City Intermediate People's Court and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Higher People's Court failed to investigate factual issues such as the reasons for the unfulfilled settlement agreement and whether the person applying for execution or the person subject to execution was responsible for the execution objection and review procedures. Under the circumstances, it was ruled that No. 21 Middle School should pay the interest on the debt to the Second Construction Company during the period of delay in performance, which was a failure to ascertain the basic facts and the facts were unclear.
3. There is no performance period specified in the execution settlement agreement, and the person subject to execution has not fulfilled the execution settlement agreement. During the execution court, a series of measures such as seizure, evaluation and auction were adopted, as well as during the case objection review period. , the person subject to execution has fulfilled the remaining debts stipulated in the settlement agreement, which violates the principle of good faith. His behavior has shown that he has not fully performed the settlement agreement. The executing court also resumed execution based on this and ruled to reject it after the person subject to execution raised objections. objection.
In the execution ruling of Lu Lixiong and Cheng Liu (2017) Guangdong Executive Supervisor No. 117 heard by the Guangdong Higher People’s Court, the Guangdong High Court held that the applicant for execution and the person subject to execution in this case signed an agreement during the execution of the case. After signing the "Letter of Commitment", an execution settlement agreement was actually reached, which was confirmed by both parties. However, because the settlement agreement did not stipulate a time limit for performance, and the person subject to execution performed the remaining debts stipulated in the settlement agreement during the objection review period, this resulted in a dispute between the two parties as to whether the settlement agreement had been fulfilled. For settlement agreements reached during execution, both parties shall perform them in accordance with the agreement. In this case, the person applying for execution and the person subject to execution signed a "Letter of Commitment" in September 2008. Although the "Letter of Commitment" did not stipulate a time limit for performance, the person applying for execution had already signed a "Letter of Commitment" in 2009 after the person subject to execution failed to perform the remaining debts. In February, an application was made to the enforcement court to resume the execution of the original effective judgment. In the following years, the enforcement court took a series of measures of seizure, evaluation and auction. However, the person subject to execution did not fulfill the settlement agreement during this period. obligation to pay the remaining amount of the settlement agreement to the enforcement court until the objection review period, which violates the principle of good faith. Its behavior has shown that it has not fully performed the settlement agreement. The enforcement court also resumed execution accordingly and issued a request to the person subject to execution. After raising an objection, the ruling dismissed the objection. During the reconsideration review, the Maoming Intermediate People's Court held that the case should not be resumed on the grounds that the person subject to execution paid the remaining amount stipulated in the "Letter of Commitment" during the objection review period, had fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement, and the settlement agreement had been completed. , thus supporting the person subject to execution’s request for reconsideration, which is an unclear fact and improper handling.
4. If an execution settlement agreement is reached during the execution process, it will only be legally binding between the parties, and the execution court has no power to enforce the contents of the settlement agreement. On the premise that the person applying for execution has not filed an application, the person subject to execution requests the execution court to execute the content of the settlement agreement, directly lift the seizure measures on the property in the name of the person subject to execution, and delete the entry information on the list of dishonest persons subject to execution. There is no fact or law. in accordance with.
In the execution ruling of Zhao Hongmin, Jiang Xiaoshan and Wang Siqi, Sun Jing et al. (2018) Su Zhifu No. 46, which was heard by the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s Court, the Jiangsu Provincial High Court held that, first, the parties involved in the execution process If an execution settlement is reached, the settlement agreement will only be legally binding between the parties. The execution of the settlement agreement is not the basis for the court's execution, and the executing court has no power to enforce the contents of the settlement agreement. In this case, the agreement on guarantee replacement reached by Party A Jiang Xiaoshan, Party B Yuan Bin, Xuzhou Guanghuan Cold-Formed Steel Co., Ltd., Xuzhou Jiahong Materials Trading Development Co., Ltd., and Party C Zhao Hongmin is only legally binding between the relevant parties. The enforcement court has no power to enforce the agreement. The Xuzhou Intermediate Court's sealing of 50 real estate units in Building 6 on the north side of the west section of Future Avenue in Zhecheng County, Henan Province was based on the guarantee commitment letter submitted by Zhao Hongmin to the court, and was not inappropriate. On the premise that Jiang Xiaoshan, the person applying for execution, did not file an application, Zhao Hongmin requested the Xuzhou Intermediate Court to implement the contents of the settlement agreement, directly lift the seizure of the properties and cars of the persons subject to execution, Wang Siqi and Sun Jing, and delete the entries on the list of dishonest persons subject to execution. Information, without factual and legal basis, this court will not support it.
5. If a party outside the case raises an objection to the exclusion of execution based on substantive rights, as well as an objection to the execution act as an interested party, the people's court shall review it as an objection to exclusion of execution. The legal basis for reviewing the objection is Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that if a party outside the case claims ownership of the subject matter of execution or has other substantive rights that are sufficient to exclude the transfer or delivery of the subject matter, the party outside the case may raise an objection.
In the enforcement ruling of Beijing Hengfu Plaza Development Co., Ltd. and others (2018) Jingzhifu No. 79 heard by the Beijing Higher People’s Court, the Beijing High Court held that in this case, Jiucheng Port Company acted as both an interested party and an interested party. If a related party raises an objection to the enforcement action against the seizure of real estate, and as a non-party to the case, raises an objection to the exclusion of the property involved in the case, and then files a lawsuit for non-party objection, the case shall be heard in accordance with the procedures for the non-party objection and objection litigation. This court will no longer review the objections to enforcement actions raised by Jiucheng Port Company. The review process should also be terminated for its execution reconsideration.
6. After the execution settlement agreement is reached, the obligations determined in the original effective judgment are suspended. When the time limit for the execution of the settlement agreement has not expired and there is no effective evidence to prove that the party subject to execution has failed to perform its obligations in accordance with the settlement agreement, the enforcement court's act of taking enforcement measures lacks factual and legal basis.
In the Gansu Provincial Higher People’s Court’s ruling on the Company Equity Dispute between Bai Jiuming, Jia Shaoru, Jing Xingke and Lan Zhengliang and Haiyuan Zhengxiang (2018) Gan Zhifu No. 1, the Gansu High Court held that , according to the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Enforcement and Reconciliation", enforcement reconciliation is when both parties voluntarily negotiate and reach a settlement agreement during the execution procedure, and change the subject of rights and obligations, subject of performance, time limit, place and method determined in the effective legal document in accordance with the law. wait. During the performance of the settlement agreement, the obligations determined in the original effective judgment are suspended. Only if one party violates the settlement agreement can it apply to the People's Court to resume the execution of the original effective legal document. When the performance period of the "Execution Settlement Agreement" has not expired, and there is no effective evidence to prove that the person subject to execution has failed to perform its obligations in accordance with the settlement agreement, Pingliang Intermediate People's Court, on May 26, 2017, without any notification method , the bank deposit of 4.0708 million yuan of the person subject to execution was forcibly deducted, and the applicant for execution only submitted an application for resumption of compulsory execution to the court on July 2. The Pingliang Intermediate People's Court took compulsory measures to deduct the bank deposits of the person subject to execution without any basis for execution. The specific circumstances and evidence for the performance of the obligation were obviously inappropriate and the determination of the facts was inappropriate.
7. Enforcement is a remedy for public rights against private rights. Creditors with legal documents that have enforceability have the right to request enforcement, that is, creditors can request the enforcement agency to enforce the rights and interests recorded in the legal document. . The execution of the settlement agreement is not an effective legal document that the execution agency is responsible for executing as stipulated in Article 2 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement Work of People's Courts (Trial)". When the parties fail to perform the execution of the settlement agreement, the person applying for execution shall Resume the execution of the original effective legal documents.
In the Supreme People’s Court’s trial of Qian Haomin vs. Hainan Yizhou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yizhou Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (2016) Supreme People’s Court Enforcement Ruling No. 287, the Supreme Court held that, One of the effects of enforcement reconciliation is to prevent enforcement. After the parties reach an enforcement settlement agreement, the people's court generally no longer interferes with the parties' performance of the enforcement settlement agreement, nor continues to take enforcement measures against the person subject to execution. Instead, the people's court will The agreement is left to the parties to perform on their own; if the obligor fails to execute the settlement agreement, the people's court may, based on the application of the other party, resume the execution of the original effective legal document instead of the settlement agreement.
In the Supreme People’s Court’s Notice of Rejection of the Appeal (2016) Supreme People’s Court No. 244 of Gansu Tenglong Mining Co., Ltd., Wu Xiaozhi and others, the Supreme Court held that the case should be restored to its original effect In the execution of a civil mediation agreement, the scope of liability of the person subject to execution shall be the scope of debt determined in the civil mediation agreement, rather than the amount of debt agreed upon in the execution settlement agreement.
8. The ruling to terminate execution and the completion of execution are two different ways to close the execution case. After the parties have completed the execution of the settlement agreement, the enforcement court has not made a closing ruling and the execution procedure cannot be terminated. Opinions have no legal basis.
In the enforcement ruling of Haikou Weizhong Industrial Development Co., Ltd., Chinese People’s Liberation Army 63983 Unit and Hainan Yangtze River Tourism Co., Ltd. (2016) Qiongzhifu No. 45, heard by the Hainan Provincial Higher People’s Court, Hainan Province The High Court held that according to Article 108 of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Enforcement Work of People's Courts (Trial)": "The way to conclude an enforcement case is: (1) All the contents determined in the effective legal documents have been implemented; (2) ) Ruling to terminate execution; (3) Ruling not to execute; (4) The parties reach an enforcement settlement agreement and have completed the execution. "Ruling to terminate execution and completion of execution are two different ways to conclude an enforcement case. However, Article 258 of the "Civil Procedure Law" stipulates that "the execution of the People's Court's ruling is terminated" does not include the method of closing the case after execution. Article 15 of the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Establishment and Closing of Enforcement Cases" stipulates: "The execution content specified in the effective legal document has been fully executed by the person subject to execution or compulsorily executed by the People's Court, or the parties concerned have Once an execution settlement agreement is reached and the execution settlement agreement is completed, the case can be closed by completion of execution. After the execution is completed, a closing notice should be issued and sent to the parties. "Therefore, the Haikou Maritime Court's closing of this case in the form of a closing notice is in compliance with the legal requirements." China Company's opinion that the final execution procedure cannot be effective because the Haikou Maritime Court did not make a closing ruling has no legal basis, and this court will not support it. Regarding the issue of whether the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law applies to this case, Article 6 of the Provisions on Review of Enforcement Objections and Article 464 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulate the time limit for objections raised by persons outside the case under two different circumstances. , because there is nothing wrong with closing this case by means of a notice of closure, and there is no contradiction in applying the above two judicial interpretations when handling this case. There is no situation where the old law and the new law are inconsistent or unclear as described by Weizhong Company, so Haikou Maritime Court correctly applied the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law.
9. Debt interest during the period of delayed performance is the statutory punitive interest stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, unless the parties explicitly claim to waive the delay in the civil mediation letter or the execution settlement agreement. Interest on the debt shall be calculated during the period of performance, otherwise it shall be calculated.
In the execution ruling of Jiangsu Yancheng Second Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Chen Yongping (2017) E Zhifu No. 113, which was heard by the Hubei Provincial Higher People’s Court, the Hubei Provincial High Court held that the period of delayed performance Debt interest is the legal liability caused by the person subject to execution's failure to perform the obligations specified in the effective legal document. Ordering the person subject to execution to pay the interest on the debt during the period of delayed performance is the power granted by the law to the people's court and is a sanction for the person subject to execution's delay in fulfilling the debt. Behavior. According to the facts ascertained, there is no content in the mediation agreement that the applicant for execution gives up the claim for debt interest during the period of delayed performance after the case enters the execution procedure. However, the execution settlement agreement only contains the content that both parties agree to suspend execution, and the applicant for execution does not give up. An expression of intention to claim debt interest during the period of delayed performance. The applicant for reconsideration believes that the case was settled through mediation, and the two parties reached a settlement agreement during the execution procedure. The applicant for execution has given up the reason for delaying the payment of interest. This lacks factual basis, and this court will not support it. Article 253 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates, "If the person subject to execution fails to perform the monetary payment obligation within the period specified in the judgment, ruling or other legal documents, he shall pay double the amount for the period of delayed performance. Debt interest. "Civil mediation documents are other legal documents stipulated in this article. The applicant for reconsideration should bear the interest on debts during the period of delayed performance only if the judgment and ruling are used as the basis for execution, and the civil mediation letter should not bear the interest on debts during the period of delayed performance as the basis for execution. The reason lacks legal basis and this court will not support it.
10. Enforcement objections should generally be raised during the execution process. The "execution process" here generally refers to the execution of the court's disposition and measures, and the execution of the court's closing decision is also a kind of Execution of an act, and objections to that act shall not be subject to the above provisions.
In He Longhua’s application for enforcement review (2014) Chuanzhi Fuzi No. 38 enforcement ruling heard by the Sichuan Provincial Higher People’s Court, the Sichuan Provincial High Court held that enforcement objections, as an enforcement relief system, are When a party or interested party believes that the execution behavior of the enforcement court violates legal provisions and files a complaint against the enforcement court, the main purpose is to promptly correct the illegal execution behavior by giving the parties statutory relief channels, and the target is the specific execution behavior of the enforcement court. Although Article 5 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Enforcement Procedures of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates in principle the time for filing objections to execution, that is, they should generally be raised during the execution process. , generally refers to the enforcement of the court's disposition and measures, and the enforcement of the court's closing decision is also an enforcement act. Objections to this act should not be restricted by the above provisions, not to mention that there is no clear prohibition in current laws and regulations. Regulation.