Study On The Enforcement Of Advance Notice Registration To Exclude Monetary Credits

The advance notice registration system has the effect of freezing the register in substantive law.However,whether its effectiveness can be extended in the enforcement procedure has not yet been determined.The existing “first seal and then release” measures in the judicial interpretation and the ambiguity of the provisions can cause many problems,such as the violation of substantive law,the protection of the notice holders,the obstruction of the registration,and the curtness of the rule.Most of the previous paper perspectives have been developed from the perspective of substantive law.From the perspective of procedural law,this paper uses case studies,statistical analysis,comparative research,and theoretical and practical methods to demonstrate the effectiveness of the notice registration system in the enforcement procedure and the specific effectiveness of different types of advance notice registration systems in enforcement.I hope that I can benefit to the judicial standards for unifying such disputes.The text of this article has more than 30,000 words and is divided into three parts.:The first part: review of the legislation and practice of advance notice registration.First of all,sorting out the provisions on the effectiveness of the notice registration in the legislation and finding these disputes that absoluteness and relativity of advance notice registration and application of advance notice registration system in enforcement.Then,,there are different practices in the courts of various localities,such as the advance notice registration to the registration,the realization of the right to the advance notice registration,whether the advance notice registration can be excluded,and the existence and suspension of the original contract during the pre-sealing period.The second part: the effect of advance notice registration under the dual role of entity and procedure.This part mainly analyzes the inherent root causes of the aforementioned problems,starting from the substantive law and procedural law.The origin of the problem lies in the substantive law’s dispute over the nature of the notice registration,the legislative value of the freedom of trade and transaction security,the relative effectiveness and absolute effectiveness of the seal,and the different of the the extent of seizure restrictions.The last part: propose a solution to type the rights of advance notice registration and explain their effectiveness in enforcement.The registration of advance notice of real estate ownership shall not be against the mandatory compulsory measures,and may be used against the price-type compulsory measures.The registration may be carried out directly during the seizure period.The registration of the mortgage notice shall not be enforced against the enforcement of the court,and the price shall be deposited at the time of price change to realize the creditor’s right when the claim cannot be settled after the registration.In the advance notice registration of the usufructuary right and the lease right,contrary to the ownership notice registration,the court may not carry out the preservation type compulsory measures,and may change the price,but the advance notice registration is not affected by the price change measure,and the application may be applied after the price change.The bidder must also bear the usufructuary and mortgage on the subject matter.