International Open Access Journal Platform

以房抵债协议可否排除强制执行的研究

Whether a Housing Repayment Agreement can Rule out Enforcement Studies

Progress in Social Sciences / 2023,5(6): 581-591 / 2023-12-25 410 383

View Download PDF

• Authors: 吴永波     
• Information:

  上海政法学院法律学院，上海

• Keywords: Debt settlement agreement with housing; In exchange for a debt; Sales contract; The change of debt; Exclude enforcement 以房抵债协议；以物抵债；买卖合同；债之更改；排除强制执行
• Abstract: In recent years, in practice, the number of civil cases related to the“housing for debt” type of litigation cases has been increasing, which hasaroused wide attention. Whether the agreement has become a hot issue. Bysearching the judgment of the Supreme People’s Court on such cases, it canbe found that the judgment opinions of the Supreme People’s Court can notbe excluded. The main reason is that the housing debt repayment agreementcannot be identified as a housing sales contract, so it cannot meet therequirements stipulated in Article 28 of the “Provisions on Execution objectionand Reconsideration”. At the same time, in the Supreme Court think can excludethe enforcement of the judgment, through summary, can be found if the twosides in the original creditor’s rights debt relationship, at the same time establisha new real estate sales contract relationship, constitute debt change, so to roomdebt agreement is identified as the space of sales contract, apply the executionobjection and reconsideration rules of article 28, thus outsiders appeal have theopportunity to get the support of the court. 近些年在实务中，民事案件有关“以房抵债”类诉讼案件数量日益增多，引发了广泛的关注。案外人凭借以房抵债协议可否排除强制执行，成为了一个热点问题。通过检索最高院关于此类案件的裁判，可以发现最高院裁判意见以不能排除为主，主要原因在于以房抵债协议不能被认定为是房屋买卖合同，从而不能满足《执行异议和复议规定》第二十八条规定的要件。同时，在最高院认为可以排除强制执行的判决中，通过归纳总结，可以发现如若双方在签订以房抵债协议中载明终止原债权债务关系，同时建立新的不动产买卖合同关系，此时构成债之更改，那么以房抵债协议就有被认定为是买卖合同的空间，就有适用《执行异议和复议规定》第二十八条的余地，从而案外人的诉请有机会可以得到法院的支持。
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.35534/pss.0506054
• Cite: 吴永波．以房抵债协议可否排除强制执行的研究［J］．社会科学进展，2023，5（6）：581-591.