论文部分内容阅读
《最高人民法院关于人民法院民事执行中查封、扣押、冻结财产的规定》第十七条以“第三人是否有过错”为标准,来决定人民法院在执行中可否查封尚处于被执行人名下、但第三人已经支付部分价款、并实际占有的财产。该条与《物权法》存在一定程度的抵触,本文就此问题提出相关见解,以期对立法与司法实践有所裨益。
Article 17 of the Supreme People’s Court on “Seizure, Seizure, and Freeze of Property in Civil Execution of People’s Courts” is based on the criterion of whether the “third party has a fault” as the standard to decide whether the people’s court can seal off the execution of the matter still under enforcement Person name, but the third person has paid part of the price, and the actual possession of the property. This article and the “Property Law” there is a certain degree of conflict, this article put forward relevant views on this issue, with a view to the legislative and judicial practice of some benefit.