Research On The Legal Rules For The Enforcement Of Objections By Outsiders

Individuals outside of the execution process can raise objections to the ownership of the execution object to achieve the purpose of excluding execution.Article 28 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Reconsideration Cases by the People’s Court" is an important judgment basis for determining whether the buyer of the house,as an outsider,can object to the ownership of the house registered in the name of the executed person,and whether the execution can be ruled out.Faced with complex trial practices,local high courts have actively introduced trial guidelines for such lawsuits,but there are still differences in the determination of excluding enforcement.In order to further improve and accurately apply Article 28 and reduce judicial differences,this article starts from the principle of the system of objection to execution by non parties,and summarizes the core issue of this type of litigation is whether the rights enjoyed by non parties to the subject matter of execution can be prioritized over the creditor’s rights of the applicant for execution,clarifying the legal basis on which non parties can exclude execution.On this basis,through empirical investigation of judicial documents,the problems existing in trial practice are sorted out: confusion in the application of Articles 28 and 29,inconsistent determination not due to the buyer’s own reasons,disorderly examination of the conditions for excluding execution,and rigid and single interpretation reasoning content.The main reason for this is that the provisions of Article 28 are not clear,resulting in a lack of unified judgment standards for the determination of exclusion of execution;There is a deviation in the understanding of referee rules,resulting in a different understanding of objective facts and subjective faults;The improper allocation of burden of proof and the lack of rigor in document expression directly affect the process of judicial argumentation,further exacerbating the differences in judicial results.Based on the 2019 Minutes of the National Conference on Civil and Commercial Trials of Courts and the exploration of local high courts,optimization suggestions for Article 28 are proposed within the existing judicial framework,such as clarifying the ways and reasonable deadlines for buyers to actively claim the right to property registration requests,classifying and handling rights obstacles and policy reasons,and further regulating discretionary power.While improving the rules of adjudication,it is necessary to clarify the scope of application of Article 28,distinguish between objective facts and subjective faults,and further unify the understanding of the rules of adjudication.Focusing on the specific application of judicial rules,by interpreting the reasoning logic of Article 28,this paper proposes methods for determining evidence in such cases,further standardizing the argumentation process of judicial judgments,in order to achieve a correct understanding and application of judicial rules,and increase the acceptability of judicial results.