论民事诉讼中行为保全的制度建构

【作者】 蒋吉才；

【导师】 廖中洪；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 保全制度的意义在于保障当事者合法权益的实现和法院判决或其裁定的执行。因此，对该制度的研究，不论是在理论上还是在实践上都具有十分重要的意义。尽管，财产保全制度作为权利人诉讼程序上暂时性的救济措施，在诉讼中发挥了十分重要的作用，然而，由于现行的民事诉讼法规定保全的对象仅仅适用于财产而不适用于行为，导致法院在实践中遇到大量的无法利用该制度进行处理的情形，使该制度的救济功能受到限制。事实上，财产保全并不能涵盖保全的所有形态，除了财产作为保全的客体以外，行为同样可以作为保全的客体。行为作为保全的客体并不是诉讼法上的新概念，在法制比较健全的国家和地区，行为保全和财产保全是相对应且处于同位阶的，二者共同构成了完整的民事保全制度。 遗憾的是该制度在我国的民事诉讼法中尚未有自己的历史和应有的地位．通过借鉴我国台湾地区和国外民事诉讼保全制度，将我国目前实施的以行为作为保全对象的“海事强制令”和“诉前临时禁令”进一步扩大到一般的民事诉讼领域，将行为纳入保全的范围，进而建构我国的民事诉讼保全制度，形成以财产保全和行为保全二者并重的体系。 全文除前言外，分为两个部分。 第一部分从行为保全制度的概念界定、该制度的历史演进、两大法系有关该制度的立法比较以说明在我国民事诉讼法中建构该制度的可行性、必要性以及现实意义。 从罗马法的禁止令状、教会法的占有保全、英美法中禁令救济制度以及大陆法系的假处分等立法现象的分析，可以看出行为保全是与财产保全并存的民事保全制度，只是二者适用的对象不同而已。 从现有的民事诉讼制度看，行为保全与现有的财产保全制度以及先于执行制度均有相当大的差异。行为保全与财产保全制度最大不同是行为保全的可以针对行为而非财产；行为保全不仅可以在诉前实施也可以诉中使用，加之其适用范围较先于执行宽泛，因又不同与先于执行。财产保全和先于执行有其局限性，不能替代行为保全，因而行为保全制度的确立能够弥补现行民事立法上的漏洞。 在民事诉讼法中确立行为保全制度的最大意义在于能够避免当事人损失的发生或着使已经发生的损失不至于进一步扩大，尤其对于那些损害一经发生就无法或者难以在事后弥补的情形，更具有重大意义，在一定程度上体现对当事人的救济从事后损害辛}偿向事先损害预防、停止的救济理念的转变，体现司法救济的及时性。实践证明确立该制度对其合法权益受害人给以及时救济是十分必要的。 第二部分是对确立行为保全制度的具体立法构想。 在案件范围上，行为保全制度不局限于海事纠纷和知识产权纠纷性质的案件，应将适用范围扩大到一般的民事案件。概括地讲，即它不仅适用于避免造成事后难以弥补的损害案件，而且适用于避免造成损害或者使损害继续扩大的情形的案件。关于行为保全管辖问题，作者参照民事诉讼法中有关财产管辖的有关规定，对行为保全进行探讨。作者认为诉前的行为保全，可与财产管辖的有关规定一致。诉中的行为保全原则上由本案法院管辖。情况紧急的，也可以由行为履行地的法院管辖。在当事人订有合法有效的仲裁协议的情形下，一方当事人向人民法院申请行为保全的，应该赋予人民法院仲裁前对行为保全的管辖权。法院在审参于为保全的申请上，在现有民事诉讼法关于保全有关规定的基础上，着重关注:(1)现有的证据表明申请人胜诉的可能性很大。(2)不适用行为保全将给申请人造成难以弥补的损害或者难以挽回的重大经济损失。(3)不存在不适宜做出行为保全的情形。 最后，提出适用行为保全具体的程序为申请、审查、裁定、复议、执行与解除、诉讼。更多还原

【Abstract】 The system of preservation is designed to maintain the lawful rights and interests of the parties and the execution of judgments and orders. Doubtlessly , the study on the very system is profound in practice and theory . The preservation has been mistaken for the attachment in civil litigation for which was not touched in civil procedure law of our country. The attachment, as transient relief measure for obligee , pays a important role in civil litigation. However, the stipulation on preservation applied merely to property in existing civil procedure law, makes courts get into heavy trouble for which confront many civil cases judged in time , then the function of preservation system for relief is restricted by its defect. In fact , the object of civil preservation contains not only property but also conduct . The conduct preservation is not a new concept in jurisprudence of civil litigation , on the contrary ,which is so important as the attachment in countries and regions , and consist of the entire civil preservation system with attachment .The conduct preservation system does not have its history and status .By reference to the preservation system in civil litigation of Tai-wan regions of our country and foreign countries , this thesis extends from the current "maritime mandatory order" and " interlocutory injunction before the institution of an action" , which may take conduct as preservation objects , further into the field of ordinary civil action, and brings conduct into the scope of the preservation, and then establishes a system for conduct preservation of civil litigation in our country, to form a dual systematic frame that lay equal stress on attachment an conduct preservation.This thesis consists of two parts except preface and postscript, 31000 words.The part one consists of conduct of preservation, that of historical evolution , that of legislative contrast between Anglo-American law system and Continent law system , and that of establishment of practicability and necessity.After injunction writ in Roman law, possession preservation in Church law, and conservatory measures in litigation, we draw a conclusion that the conduct preservation is coexistent with attachment, merely different from objects applied to.From a viewpoint of existing civil litigation system, the attachment and advance execution have their defects , which conduct preservation makes a great difference between attachment and advance execution. The establishment of conduct preservation embodies transformation of relief idea from post-compensation to defense against damage in advance.Part two is the legislative suggestion in which scope of , jurisdiction of , examination standard of , and concrete procedure of civil case that the conduct preservation is applied to .In the scope of civil case, the system of conduct preservation is adopted not only in the avoiding the irremediable damage , but also in the preventing enlargement and occurrence of damage . the conduct preservation is administered by the court accepting civil case in general, and also , the court of the place of performance in exigent circumstance. The court should be entitled to have jurisdiction over conduct preservation applied for. , on condition that there is legitimate valid arbitration agreement between two parties . Reviewing the application of preservation , the court should be concentrate on:(1) The applicant has sufficient evidence to win a lawsuit.(2) The applicant will be beard irremediable damage and heavy economic loss.(3)No circumstance is appropriate to administered conduct preservation.At last, the concrete procedure is discussed in detail, which consist of application, examination, interlocutory, review, enforcement, cancellation and litigation.更多还原