The Empirical Analysis On The Verdict Of Debt With Goods In The Procedure Of Civil Execution

The Ruling of Debt with Goods in the Procedure of Civil Execution is a kind of rulingsmade by the court on the basis of the agreement of debt with goods. The existing problem isthat the ruling of debt with goods is not a legal type， and rulings of debt with goods aregenerally divided into the category of conciliation of execution by the theory circle and thenon-intervention principle is followed by the court during the initial period， but as it isdifficult to enforce this kind of rulings， the courts begin to confess their legal effect.This paper is named as The Empirical Analysis on the Ruling of Debt with Goods in theProcedure of Civil Execution. It starts with a typical case， and then the disputes and thefocus will be analyzed and summarized. Around the focus， the paper will elaborate on thedefinition and the quality of the ruling of debt with goods. In addition， the legal basis of theruling of debt with goods as a kind of enforceable ruling will be demonstrated by interpretingthe article230of the civil procedure law from the angle of the Literal interpretation anddrawing lessons from Anglo-American consent judgment and judicial ADR theory.This paper is divided into four parts， about21050words:The first part mainly introduces a typical case about the ruling of debt with goods，analyzes the dispute and summarizes the focus. And the focus will be generalized from thedispute of theoretical field and practice field， that is， how to determine the nature of theruling of debts with goods.The second part mainly discusses the related issues in this case: in order to distinguishthe ruling of debt with goods from the execution reconciliation， the article interprets thearticle230of the civil procedure law from the angle of the Literal interpretation; in order todetermine the nature of the ruling， the article discusses its legal effect; the paper alsodiscusses that when regards the Ruling of Debt with Goods in the Procedure of CivilExecution as the name of the implementation has a realistic problemThe third part is the conclusion and analysis of the case， in this part the author agreeswith the court of first instance which admits to the repossessed ruling， denies the reasonsgiven by the court of second instance， and analyzes why the author agrees or disagrees with the combination of the above.The fourth part is the revelation of the study， including the demonstration of the effectof ruling of debt with goods endowed by the legislation and the improvement of theinstitution of it. The author believes that the ruling of debt with goods should be endowedwith enforceability by the law that has the effect of causing changes in property rights as animprovement， the ruling reasonably absorbs the practice of reconciliation which endows theparties with the right of choice， when not being fulfilled， the parties concerned may applyfor executing the original legal instruments in force， in addition， the parties can also applyfor executing the ruling of debt with goods directly.