停止侵害判決及其強制執行以規制重複侵權的解釋論為核心

停止侵害判決在我國司法實務中經常出現，有必要從解釋論上加以展開。停止侵害判決對應停止侵害請求權，其主要特點在於指向未來的行為。如果不能直接擴大該請求權的範圍，也可以通過訴訟法上對相關請求和判決主文的解釋達到相似效果。在重複侵權面前，需要明確執行中給付判決的禁止範圍，只要將來出現的行為與生效判決所禁止的行為完全相同、在類型上相同或者在實質上相同，就被生效判決禁止。目前我國對新的事實的理解值得反思，應當重新認識對執行終結後排除妨害規則的適用。停止侵害判決需要通過間接執行方式執行，比較法上分別存在罰款和拘留模式及支付強制金制度兩種模式。我國應當重新解釋目前罰款和拘留規則，完善並行適用的遲延履行金制度。

Permanent injunction is released in legal practice in China commonly and it is necessary to research it from the perspective of legal interpretation. The basis of this kind of judgment is the material right to forbid some behavior, which could be characterized by its nature of affecting actions of parties in the future. If it is impossible to extend the scope of this substantial right directly, we could still rely on the procedural institutions to achieve similar results. The interpretation of a claim together with the operative parts of a judgment is in this sense highly relevant. In order to prevent repeating infringements, the forbidden behaviors are supposed to be clarified in the enforcement proceedings as well, which refers to the specialty of the subject matter of the permanent injunction. Specifically, the identical action, the action which is sharing the same type with the condemned action, as well as the substantially same action have to be covered by the permanent injunction. The currently prevailing understanding of new facts after the trial is on the contrary supposed to be reconsidered. Moreover, the special rule for the obstruction of the enforcement of judgment after the enforcement itself may not be adopted in case of the permanent injunction. Finally, the indirect enforcement is suitable for the permanent injunction. Since there are a model of making fine coupled with putting the debtor into custody and a model of charging compulsory damages in various legal traditions, the mixture of these two models in China should be improved and developed.