強制執行法之比較-以臺灣與美國加利福尼亞州為例

近年來美國的刑事訴訟法及民事訟訴法影響著我國刑、民事訴訟法的修法及學說理論的變動，而國內民事執行法的研究向來以參考德、日等國為主，很少提及美國的民事執行法，而一部法典的誕生絕對是經過歷代、當代法學名家反覆思考、字句琢磨的成果，所以必定有可觀之處，從英美法系的美國民事執行法與大陸法系的臺灣法制作比較，從而了解美國對於民事執行是如何運作及法令的解釋，「禮失而求諸野」或許太平洋彼岸有值得我方效法之處。考察美國民事執行法與我國的制度，岐異很大的有下列幾項：一、立法制度：美國加州不採訴訟、執行分立的立法模式，民事執行只是民事訴訟的一部分，與我國目前制度不同。二、執行主體：美國法院無執行處的設置，辦理民事執行的機關為司法警察機關。三、執行名義：在美國加州的執行名義稱為「執行令」，能成為執行名義只有「判決」一項，在我國能成為執行名義有數種，其中以判決為執行名義在實務運作上反而僅占少數。四、動產、不動產執行：動產、不動產執行規定占據我國法典近一半的篇幅，但在美國加州法典所占比例不到百分之一，且在不動產拍賣程序上，不像我國冗長的減價程序，倒似我國動產拍賣現場喊價，且一拍終結，此點深刻影響執行效率。另外，不動產執行上，美國獨有的「房地豁免制度」為我國所無。五、財產開示及調查：美國加州在民事執行程序中的調查財產資料及聽證程序與訴訟中相較差異不大，皆為當事人權能，僅調查標的不同，以上兩者在我國執行程序中受到相當限制。六、結案制度：我國對於執行終結未受償的債權，製發債權憑證交付債權人，美國加州無債權憑證制度，反而是在已繳納的情形下，債權人須製作債權滿足確認書交付債務人及法院，防止重覆執行，與我國有著相反的立法思考。除了上述的不同點之外，在「對人執行」上，我國於管收有具體的成文規範，而在美國管收無成文規定，但類似制度為「蔑視法庭」規定，以不遵從法官履行命令而將債務人監禁，所以如何調查債務人有無管收事由，這是在執行過程中最嚴肅的課題，尤其債務人表面上看似無財產，但實際上有財產、有履行能力的狀況，即債務人有隱匿或處分財產等脫產行為，這點有賴財產異動、債務人金流的充份調查，在我國民事執行實務上，若想依靠執行人員實現，在執行上力有未逮，在法制上亦未賦予債權人足夠的調查請求權及主導權，與美國加州法制相異其趣，筆者認為此點為本國法制上的大問題，本文以目前行政執行經驗為例提出相應解決辦法，對惡性倒債之輩，無僥倖空間，相繩以法，維社會公平。

關鍵字

強制執行、房地豁免、蔑視法庭、債權滿足確認書、財產開示。

並列摘要

In recent years the American Code of Criminal Procedure and that of Civil litigation have been affecting those of the amendments in our country as well as influencing the related studies and theories.However, in terms of Compulsory Enforcement Act, research in our country is mostly based on resource from Germany and Japan.The birth of a code of law is absolutely the result of the cooperative work from famous law scholars after several gene- rations, including modern time, and with those scho- lars’ strenuous efforts in seeking the best words for refinement, which is definitely worth of reading. By comparing the act of enforcement of America and that of Taiwan, we can understand how America implements the law, and we can also clarify statutory interpretation in its law system. We believe that the research of civil law system in American, which is a country on the other side of Pacific Ocean, provides advantages for our civil law system. After scrutinizing both Code of Civil Execution in America and that in our nation, the massive differences are discovered as the followings:1.The Legislation System,The Legislation system in California, U.S. is distinct from our nation’s in a way that its Civil Execution is only part of Civil litigation, while its mode of legislation doesn’t separate litigation from execution.2.Enforcement agent,In Taiwan, procedure of civil enforcement is conducted by civil enforcement departments in courts whereas procedure of civil enforcement in America is carried out by police agency.3.Enforcement title,The enforcement title in the California is called “a writ of Execution ”, and the only item that assembles such name is only “judgment.” There are several enforcement titles in our nation, among which the enforcement title for “judgment ” takes up very little portion of all.4.Enforcement against Movable Property and Immovable property,More than half of articles of Compulsory Enforcement Act in Taiwan stipulates rules about enforcement against movable property and immovable property. In contrast to our country, the law in America rarely mentions rules about such realm. Compared with long procedure of enforcement against immovable property in Taiwan, America‘s law only has one auction for each procedure of endorsements against immovable property, and it resembles the procedure of enforcement against movable property in Taiwan. Moreover, on the practice of enforcement against immovable property, the exclusive “Homestead Exemption” in U. S. is what the law system doesn’t have here in our nation.5.Examination proceedings and Investigations,In the California civil execution, the property examination proceedings and investigation and the process of hearing and testimony don’t make big difference in the litigation in California in U.S., which is included in the right of the litigant. What’s making the difference is the targets of investigation. Both the Examination proceedings and investi- gations have more restrictions in the process of executions in our nation.6.Case-closing system,In our country, the debtor is issued a Certificate of Obligatory Right when the debtor is sentenced with End Unpaid in the case-closure, while the U.S.California has no such certificate system. Instead, the debt payment must be all cleared beforehand, and the debt fulfillment certificate will then be given to the debtor to prevent repeated enforcement, which reveals opposite legislative thinking with our country. In addition to the differences described above, there are concrete regulations regarding the law of custody(imprison) in our country, whereas there’s no such ones yet similar, like those for “the Contempt of Court” if the debtor refuses to fulfill orders, one will be prisoned. Therefore whether there are reasons behind the custody(imprison) is considered a serious issue in the procedure of execution. For example, if a debtor seemly appears with no personal assets but conceal or dispose the property subject to the compulsory enforcement secretly, further investigation on the debtor’s property such as transaction records of bank accounts are definitely required. However, this kind of investigation is often inadequate during our enforcement procedure due to the reality that the law only allows enforcement departments to conduct it. Instead of relying only on enforcement departments, the law in California gives creditors more dominance on investigation during enforcement proce- dure.The essay presented here has taken a stand of using the paradigm of our present administrative execution to propose a solution for the problem. Since we leave Zero tolerance for people who involve vicious bankruptcy, we should put them in cutody to maintain the social justice.