裁判文书买卖合同法律性质之法理分析

终审裁判文书买卖合同,有违既判力主观范围效力原理,欲使终审裁判文书既判力主观范围以外的主体成为执行程序中的适格当事人,并且其以自己的名义向法院申请强制执行,这种漫无边际扩张既判力主观范围的企图,为法不许。裁判文书买卖合同与诉讼担当、诉讼信托皆有本质区别,既不能将之归入任意的诉讼担当制度,也不能归入诉讼信托范畴,且诉讼信托,亦为法所不许。裁判文书买卖合同对象之强制执行请求权,它不具有金融资产本身所应具有的很强的流通性、人为的可分性、名义价值不变性等特性,不属于金融资产转让合同。债权凭证转让合同的标的,一改裁判文书买卖合同标的之人身性、公法性而具有流动性、财产性,属于合法的资产交易对象,债权凭证转让合同应当合法、有效。

Analysis on the Legal Nature of Judgement Sale Contract

The final judgment sale contract is against the principle about the subjective scope of res judicata effect .It is not allowed that the subject beyond the principle becomes qualified in the procedure of execution and application for court enforcement in his own name .Such an attempt at boundless expansion of subjective scope of res judicata is for -bidden by law .The judgement sale contract is different from litigation and litigation trust .Neither can it be classified as litigation take-on system, nor litigation trust system.What＆#39;s more, the litigation trust is also forbidden by law .The enforcement right of claim , the object of judgment sale contract does not have the characteristics of strong liquidity , artificial divisibility , nominal value invariance like the financial assets .So it does not belong to the financial asset transfer contract .The subject of debt certificate transfer contract is legitimate for it has the features of liquidity and property instead of the factor of person and public law .So the debt certificate transfer contract shall be legal and effective .