一、强制拍卖的性质和效率之争民事执行措施中的司法强制拍卖,与其说是国家执行机构“强制”实现债权人权利的公法行为,不如说是透过执行机构之手所实现的债权人的意志。因之,基于私法观而产生的执行强制,强制的渊源在债权人,而非国家,国家(执行机构)只是债权人的代理人,这一点构成了执行活动正当化的依据。据此,强制拍卖自然也要体现彻底的债权人意思主义,以债权人对债务人责任财产所享有的变价处分权为中心来构筑私法化的强制拍卖理论。19世纪末20世纪初,伴随民事诉讼法的公法化趋势,在德国,民事强制执行也逐步由债权人“私的执行”发展到全面的“官执行”。执行机构取代债权人的地位,独占了对于债务人的强制执行权,债权人基于实体权利取得了对执行机构的执行请求权,强制执行公法化开始抬头。由此强制拍卖理论中的债权人意思主义遭废弃,而代之以执行机构独享的拍卖处分权。1897年德国《强制拍 First, the nature of mandatory auction and efficiency dispute Civil enforcement measures judicial enforcement of the auction, not so much the national implementing agencies “mandatory ” to achieve the rights of creditors of public law as it is through the implementation of the hands of creditors Will. Therefore, the mandatory and mandatory enforcement of enforcement based on the concept of private law is based on creditors rather than countries and countries (implementing agencies) as the creditors’ proxies, which constitutes the justification of enforcement activities. Accordingly, the compulsory auction must also embody the complete creditor’s estheticism, and construct the compulsory auction theory of private law with the centering of the creditor’s price-changing share of the debtor’s liability property. In the late 19th and early 20th century, with the trend of public law in the Civil Procedure Law, in Germany, the enforcement of civil law was also gradually developed from creditor “private execution” to comprehensive “official execution”. The executive agency replaces the status of creditor, monopolizes the obligatory enforcement power over the debtor, creditor obtains the enforcement right of execution agency based on substantive rights, and the enforcement of public law begins to rise. As a result, obligee objectivism in the forced auction theory was abandoned and replaced by an exclusive auction agency. 1897 Germany "forced shoot