Civil Rights And Interests Sufficient To Exclude Enforcement By Complains Of The Person Other Than Involved In The Case

With the popularity of the Internet and the development of the modern banking industry,the way of settlement of transactions through bank system has become more and more popular in the economic exchanges,and gradually becomes an alternative to cash payments.In this process,it appears that the remitter incorrectly remits the money to the payee's bank account because of the account information,the payee's account number,and the amount of the remittance is not correctly checked.Since there is a legal relationship between the execution applicant and the person subjected to execution,the court freezes the bank account of the person subjected to execution on the basis of the application made by the execution applicant.At this time,the outsider claims that he is the holder of the civil rights and interests to this error remittance,and puts forward complains of the person other than involved in the case.In the practice of the judicial trial in China,whether the civil rights and interests enjoyed by the outsider due to the error remittance to the account being frozen by the court is sufficient to exclude the enforcement of disputes,the main reasons lie in the lack of evidence standards,the type of civil rights and interests enjoyed by the outsider in the case,and lack of the enforcement of the law.Through the analysis of court trial's cases and the analysis of legal theory,this type of the case constitutes unjust enrichment.At the same time,the court determines that the court freezes the bank account of the person subjected to execution first,and then the outsider takes the error remittance to the account being frozen by the court of complains of the person other than involved in the case.And the bank account only has this money remitted,so this error remittance conforms to the characteristics of earmarked money.That is to say,the legal relation of the credit and debt exists between the outsider and the person subjected to execution,as well as this bank account differs from another.Moreover,the person subjected to execution can not control this bank account,and the deposit currency can not play a role in circulation function,conforming to the requirement of specialization of bank accounts.So the bank account is closed and separated,and the error remittance has been specified.Therefore,the civil rights and interests enjoyed by outsiders in the case constitutes the unjust enrichment of the specific situation.And considered factors of excluding execution of the creditor of the specific situation,the paper concludes that the creditor of the specific situation can exclude the enforcement.In addition,the currency of the error remittance is the deposit currency rather than the cash currency,and there is no basis for the principle of "possession that is all".This paper aims to sort out the cases in China's judicial trial.In the case of clarifying that the error type of remittance of the outsider is the deposit currency rather than the cash currency,and the analysis of the relevant legal principles is based on the deposit currency,and puts forward the creditor of the specific situation where subject can exclude the enforcement regarding complains of the person other than involved in the case.