| Basing on the exact interpretation of the law in force, a conservative understanding should be selected as to the norm established by the"Wu Mei" Case, that is, the Case only gives a negative answer to the question whether the compromise outside action in the second instance can prevent the enforcement of the efficient judgment of the first instance or not, and the Case has not expanded the effect of Article 230 of the Civil Procedure Law to the compromise outside action in the second instance.The normal property of Article 230 of the Civil Procedure Law determines that it cannot be expanded to other fields besides the compromise in the enforcement procedure. Another reason to support this conclusion is that, according to the law in force, the enforcement organization should not review the performance of the compromise in the second instance when placing a case on file for enforcement. This conclusion can be expanded to the handling of other compromises after judgment besides the compromise in the second instance.Thus, if the defendant has performed the compromise in the second instance but the plaintiff still applies to enforce the efficient judgment of the first instance, such application should be allowed. On the contrary, the person against who the judgment is being executed can formulate his demurral according to the law in force, but it should be admitted that this means of redress has its fundamental defects to handle the substantial disputes due to the compromise after judgment. If the person against whom the judgment is being executed is allowed to bring a new action, the new judgment may conflict with the original act of execution, which cannot be resolved by the law in force. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号