论文部分内容阅读
在执行阶段,双方当事人达成执行和解协议,该和解协议的内容往往与之前成立的执行名义所确定的内容不同。执行依据究竟为之前确立的执行名义,还是新达成的和解协议,理论界和事务界一直争论不休,其问题的根源乃和解协议性质认定的分歧。由于我国对此的立法较为粗略,如何协调和平衡二者的地位和效力问题,在我国的司法实践中显得较为突出和普遍。本文将对此问题进行研究和探讨。
In the implementation phase, the two parties reached an implementation agreement for reconciliation, the content of which is often different from what was previously established in the name of implementation. Whether the implementation basis of the implementation is based on the execution name established before or the newly reached settlement agreement has long been debated both by theorists and the business circles. The root of the problem is the disagreement on the nature of the settlement agreement. Due to the relatively rough legislation in our country, how to coordinate and balance the status and effectiveness of the two is more prominent and universal in the judicial practice of our country. This article will study and discuss this issue.