二審和解不履行的實體後果與程序應對

根據最高人民法院指導案例2號，一方不履行和解協議，另一方有權要求法院執行一審判決。只有在約束雙方的實體法律關係正是一審判決項下的實體法律關係的條件下，該規則才具有實體基礎。一方不履行和解協議時，若存在不同的實體基礎，則需要與最高人民法院指導案例2號不同的規則調整二審和解不履行。最高人民法院指導案例2號以及與之不同的規則的實體基礎即二審和解不履行的實體後果，後者在體系上屬違約責任問題，當事人的意思自治具有優先地位。若不存在當事人的特別約定，則需要適用任意性規定確定違約責任的具體內容，亦即一方不履行和解協議，約束雙方的既不是原始爭議實體法律關係，亦不是一審判決項下的實體法律關係，而仍是和解協議項下的實體法律關係。由於二審和解不履行的實體後果存在多樣性，一方不履行和解協議時，除去最高人民法院指導案例2號確立的執行一審判決的規則，還需要不予執行一審判決、另行訴訟等規則共同調整二審和解不履行。

According to Guiding Case No. 2, if one party fails to perform a settlement, the other party can enforce the first-instance judgment. This rule has a substantive basis only when the relationship binding both parties aligns with the one under the first-instance judgment. In cases where a different substantive basis arises, different rules are needed to regulate the non-performance of the second-instance settlement. The substantive basis relied upon by Guiding Case No. 2 and the differing rules constitute the substantive consequences of the non-performance of the settlement. The latter, from a systematic perspective, falls under the issue of breach of contract, where private autonomy takes the advantage. In the absence of specific agreements, the specific content of the breach of contract needs to be determined by applying default rules. This means that when one party fails to perform a settlement, what binds both parties is neither the original substantive legal relationship in dispute nor the relationship under the first-instance judgment. Rather it remains the substantive legal relationship under the settlement. Due to the diversity of the substantive basis, in addition to the rules established by Guiding Case No. 2, rules such as not enforcing the first-instance judgment and initiating a new action are needed.