News

Editor's Note

When the client finds a judge or a lawyer, he/she will not tell you whether he/she is an outsider or an interested party, nor will he/she tell you whether he/she is objecting to the execution or the object of execution. His/Her purpose is very simple,juat to execute the act, or preclude the execution of the subject matter of execution. At this time, as a legal worker, you have to dig through the many clauses and legal principles, find the most suitable basis for the right of claim for the parties, and use the basis of the right of claim to find a remedy that can solve the problem. —— Do you file an objection to the enforcement action as an interested party, or raise an objection to the object of enforcement as an outsider (objection of an outsider)?

Execution Behavior Objection and Execution Object Objection Relevant Provisions

01

In addition to the above-mentioned laws and regulations, there are also some local judicial documents that provide answers to the objection to the enforcement action and the object of enforcement:

Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court "Answer to Several Questions about Enforcement Difficulties" Question 2. How to apply the law when the objection to the enforcement action and the objection of the enforcement object overlap? Answer: If the objector formally believes that the execution is illegal, but the reason is to assert substantive rights to the subject of execution, Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Law still applies. If the objector raises an objection to both the execution behavior and the object of execution, if the two objections are separable, Articles 232 and 234 of the Civil Procedure Law will apply respectively.

Jilin Province Higher People's Court's "Answer to Several Difficult Questions Regarding the Trial of Actions Against Execution Objections" Question 7. If a person outside the case raises an objection to the object of execution and an objection to the execution behavior at the same time, how should the people's court handle it? In an enforcement objection lawsuit, the person outside the case raises both the objection of the object of execution and the objection to the execution behavior. If the execution behavior has nothing to do with the substantive rights that the person outside the case enjoys in the object of execution, the people's court will only decide whether the objection of the object of execution is established and whether the objection of execution is valid and the person outside the case enjoys. Whether the civil rights and interests are sufficient to exclude execution will be tried, and the objection to execution will not be judged.

Heilongjiang Provincial Higher People's Court "Answer to Several Questions about Hearing Cases of Objections to Execution (Revised Edition)" 14. (2) Attention should be paid to eliminating objections to execution behaviors that should be dealt with in execution procedures 1.Objections to enforcement actions such as seizure and freezing, including seizures exceeding the standard, illegal changes to enforcement measures, etc.; 2. Objections to enforcement measures such as auction, sale, or repayment of debts; 3. Except for objections to the implementation of the distribution plan in addition to the litigation cases, the objections raised against the execution order of the creditor's rights, mortgage rights, construction project priority  involved in the execution.

The Difference between the Enforcement Action Objection and the Enforcement Object Objection

02 It can be seen from the above provisions that in the enforcement procedure, there are two remedies for the rights and interests of the parties, interested parties or persons not involved in the case due to enforcement. The way is the objection of enforcement of Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Law (objection of an outsider), and these two relief ways have completely different differences, but sometimes they are also raised at the same time, resulting in a situation where the object of the objection is indistinguishable.

Article 5 of the Provisions on Reconsideration of Objections stipulates the scope of subjects who can raise objections to enforcement acts as interested parties in enforcement proceedings: creditors in other cases waiting to be seized, bidders in auction procedures, persons with pre-emptive rights , assisting the obligor, etc. Article 7 of this provision enumerates the scope of examination of objections to enforcement actions. From the above two provisions, it can be concluded that the subjects of objections to enforcement actions are only the parties and interested parties. The objection raised is for enforcement actions that violate the law, and the purpose is to request the court to correct or revoke the enforcement actions, which does not necessarily exclude mandatory.

An outsider is a unique concept in civil enforcement procedures. When the person outside the case believes that he or she has ownership of the subject of execution or other substantive rights that are sufficient to prevent the transfer and delivery of the subject of execution, and such substantive rights are infringed by the execution, the purpose is to exclude enforcement. The entity rights of outsiders are typical of ownership, including usufructuary rights, specific creditor's rights such as lease rights, and the right of expectation of real rights of no-fault buyers.

For example, after the lessee leases the house, the house is sealed up due to other cases. The seal-up and auction at this time will not affect the previous lease, but if the enforcement court requires the lessee to vacate the house, the lessee raises an objection based on the house lease. The objection raised is the objection of the outsider.

Also, after the lessee leased the house, the house was seized and auctioned due to other cases. The lessee believed that the court's auction violated its right of first refusal. At this time, the objection raised by the lessee is the objection of enforcement behavior, because the lessee's right of first refusal has been violated by the illegal enforcement behavior, and the enforcement court should correct or revoke it.

Article 8 of the Provisions on Objection Reconsideration stipulates that the objection of enforcement behavior and the object of enforcement are divided into two situations: One is the competition of substantive rights, that is, the person outside the case raises an objection to the object of enforcement due to having substantive rights. On the basis of such substantive rights, objections are raised against the enforcement behavior. The purpose of these two objections is to exclude enforcement. At this time, the substantive objection should absorb the procedural objection and only examine the entity. The other is the co-occurrence of subjects. The person outside the case raises an objection based on substantive rights, but also raises an objection to enforcement behavior not based on such substantive rights. Such cases should be examined separately.

From the above-mentioned Article 8 of the Provisions on Reconsideration of Objections, it can also be concluded that the fundamental difference between the objection of enforcement action and the objection of enforcement is whether the objection is based on substantive rights and whether compulsory enforcement can be excluded; if the basis for objection is only procedural right, the purpose is only to correct or revoke the illegal execution behavior, it is the execution behavior objection.

Reference Case: (2019) Supreme Court No. 268

03 Summary of the Case：Due to the Chengmai County Government and the Land and Resources Bureau's failure to perform (2010) Qiongxing Zaizhong Zi No. 6: Order Huaqi Company to renew the "State-owned Land Use Certificate" for 200 mu of land located in Yingbin Island, an old town in Chengmai County, Hainan Province ”, Huaqi Company applied to the court for enforcement. On June 23, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Hainan Province issued an enforcement ruling (2015) Qiongzhizi No. 1, sealing up the land certificates No. 002260 and No. 002259 registered in the name of Xinming Company and Chengmai County Government. The land certificate number under the name of Xinming Company is the land use right of 171.2346 mu of the overlapping part of the land under the "State-owned Land Use Certificate" of Laocheng Guoyong (2002) No. XX. On February 16, 2018, due to the application of Huaqi Company, the hospital sent (2018) Qiongzhihui No. 3 Notice of Assistance in Execution to Haikou Municipal Government and Haikou Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources, requesting them to assist Chengmai County Government and Chengmai The County Land and Resources Bureau fulfilled the obligations determined by the Court (2010) Qiong Xing Zai Zhong Zi No. 6 Administrative Judgment. During this period, the second instance of Huaqi Company suing Xinming Company for revocation of Xinming Company's land use right certificate is in progress, and the ownership of the land involved has not been finalized.

Therefore, Xinming Company raised an outsider's enforcement objection to the above-mentioned execution. The Hainan Provincial Higher People's Court made an enforcement ruling (2018) Qiong Zhiyi No. 6 on April 18, 2018, rejecting Xinming Company's objection request. Xinming Company then took Huaqi Company as the defendant and filed a lawsuit of objection by an outsider to the Higher People's Court of Hainan Province on May 14, 2018. The claim is to stop the 200 mu land in Yingbin Island, an old town in Chengmai County, Hainan Province (referred to as the the land involved in the case) is executed for the replacement of certificates.

The Supreme People's Court of the second instance of the court of second-instance objection in this case held that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether Xinming Company's lawsuit of objection to execution by an outsider complies with the statutory conditions. As far as this case is concerned, the Hainan Provincial Higher People's Court (2010) Qiong Xing Zai Zhong Zi No. 6 judgment was based on the fact that the land use rights involved belonged to Huaqi Company, and the judgment ordered Chengmai County Government and Chengmai County Land Resources. The bureau renewed the state-owned land use certificate for Huaqi Company. Xinming Company raised an enforcement objection on the basis of Haikou Guoyong (2012) No. 002260, 002259 "State-owned Land Use Certificate", claiming the right to the overlapping part of the land in the aforementioned land use certificate, and then requesting to exclude the enforcement, which is in essence an objection to the enforcement. (2010) The judgment of Qiong Xing Zai Zhong Zi No. 6 denied the determination of the ownership of land use rights, and believed that the judgment was wrong, so Xinming's lawsuit did not comply with Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China . The conditions for the execution of an objection by a person outside the case stipulated in Article 305 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China will not be accepted in accordance with the law.

Xinming Company claimed that Huaqi Company requested the revocation of Xinming Company claimed that Huaqi Company requested the revocation of Xinming Company's land use right certificate. Huaqi Company appealed to the Higher People's Court of Hainan Province because it refused to accept the first instance. Before the ownership of the land involved in the case is finally determined in accordance with the law, the renewal of the land certificate of the land involved will cause the problem of "one land and two owners", which is within the scope of the legality review of the enforcement behavior. Article 225 of the Law "If a party or an interested party believes that the enforcement act violates the law, they may file a written objection to the people's court responsible for enforcement. The people's court will conduct a review within 15 days from the date of the ruling. If the reasons are valid, it shall rule to revoke or correct it. If the reasons are not valid, it will rule to reject it. If the parties or interested parties are not satisfied with the ruling, they may go to a higher level within ten days from the date when the ruling is served. The people's court applies for reconsideration." However, this case belongs to a litigation procedure in which an outsider raises an objection to the subject of execution, so his objection to the execution behavior will not be reviewed by this court.In the reference case, Xinming Company raised both an objection to the exclusion of the object of execution based on its substantive rights, and an objection to the execution behavior as an interested party. The claims of the action of objection to the execution of the person outside the case should have nothing to do with the original judgment, and should not involve the issue of right or wrong of the judgment itself as the basis for execution, but only involve the substantive rights dispute over the subject matter of execution itself.

Xinming Company contends that the conflict between the land involved and the valid land certificate held by Huaqi Company in the case of applying for certificate replacement is related to the execution of this case. However, this case belongs to a substantive litigation procedure in which a person outside the case raises an objection to the subject matter of execution, and the objection to the execution procedure will not be examined.