债务人到期金钱债权执行的困境与路径优化

Dilemmas and Path Optimization in the Enforcement of the Debtor’s Mature Monetary Claims

摘要: 对于债务人到期金钱债权执行问题，现行规范通过《民诉法解释》《执行规定》构建了“履行通知–履行”“履行通知–异议–停止执行”“履行通知–沉默–径行执行”的三重框架。这虽然为到期债权执行提供了合法性基础，但并未从根本上解决执行程序的正当性问题，债务人到期金钱债权的执行制度仍面临执行依据欠缺、执行正当性不足、审执界限模糊等核心困境。研究从比较法视角出发，结合德国严格区分“扣押–变价”阶段的收取诉讼模式，提出本土化优化路径：通过“原执行名义 + 变价命令”补强执行依据正当性，同时构建形式异议与实体异议相区分的分层审查机制，厘清收取诉讼与代位权诉讼的功能界分及程序衔接规则，平衡债权人、债务人与次债务人三方权益，破解到期金钱债权执行的困境。

Abstract: Regarding the execution against a debtor’s matured monetary claims, China’s current regulatory framework—established by the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law and the Provisions on Enforcement Work—has formed a tripartite structure: “payment order-performance,” “payment order-objection-cessation of execution,” and “payment order-silence-direct execution.” While this framework provides a legal basis for execution, it fails to fundamentally resolve the legitimacy concerns inherent in the execution process. The current approach to executing matured monetary claims still faces core dilemmas, including a lack of valid execution authority, insufficient procedural justification, and blurred boundaries between adjudication and execution. Adopting a comparative law perspective, this study examines Germany’s collection action model, which strictly distinguishes between the seizure and realization phases. It then proposes a localized optimization path: reinforcing the legitimacy of execution authority through a composite model combining the “original execution title and realization order”; establishing a tiered review mechanism that distinguishes between formal and substantive objections; and clarifying the functional distinctions and procedural linkages between collection actions and subrogation actions. These measures aim to balance the interests of creditors, debtors, and third-party debtors, thereby resolving the institutional impasse in executing matured monetary claims.