论文部分内容阅读
在很长一段时间内,债务人滥用旧《民事诉讼法》第194条规定的异议权,我国督促程序长期处于司法闲置状态。新《民事诉讼法》通过第133条第1款和第217条完善了督促程序规定,然而新法实施1年后督促程序现状并没有实质改善。笔者通过对国外督促程序的立法发展进行简单介绍,提出应该从内部与外部两种途径完善我国督促程序:内部完善是对督促程序法律条文的再细化;外部完善是督促程序与诉讼程序、非讼程序衔接的再顺滑,其中引入非讼事件程序法及其相关理论对完善督促程序更加急迫与必要。
For a long time, the debtor has abused the right of objection stipulated in Article 194 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, and our country urges the proceedings to remain in a state of juridical activity for a long time. The new Code of Civil Procedure perfected the procedure for supervising procedures through Articles 133 (1) and 217, however, one year after the implementation of the new law, there was no substantial improvement in the status quo. Through brief introduction to the legislative development of foreign supervisory procedures, the author proposes that domestic supervisory procedures should be perfected from both the internal and external aspects: internal improvement is to refine the legal provisions of supervisory procedures; external improvement is to urge procedures and procedures Procedural convergence and then smooth, including the introduction of non-litigation procedural law and its related theories to improve the supervision process more urgent and necessary.