In this case, the executors Zhu Mou, Li Mou were originally a partnership, and they were jointly and severally liable for the applicant Tang Mou's 654.38 million yuan. In the process of implementation, the applicant Tang reached a settlement agreement with the three executed persons, and the agreement stipulated that Tang gave up 20,000 yuan; It is agreed that within two days after the two parties reach an agreement, Zhu will pay Tang 40,000 yuan, Yang 20,000 yuan and Li 20,000 yuan. Other issues will not be investigated. On the day of reaching an agreement, Zhu and Yang paid Tang 40,000 yuan and 20,000 yuan respectively. Later, because Li did not fulfill his obligations according to the settlement agreement, Tang applied to resume the execution of the original judgment. The collegial panel has two different opinions on whether Zhu and Yang are jointly and severally obligated to pay off the remaining 40,000 yuan debt after the case is resumed. The first point of view is that the applicant Tang requested to resume the execution of the original judgment, that is, to resume the execution of all the contents, including the content that the three executed persons bear joint liability for all the debts, and asked Zhu, Yang and Li who failed to perform the settlement agreement to bear joint liability for the remaining 40,000 yuan, which is conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of creditors. Zhu and Yang shall be jointly and severally liable for the remaining debts of 40,000 yuan. The second point of view is that in the execution of this case, the two parties reached a settlement agreement on the premise of legality and voluntariness, which changed the subject, amount and mode of performance of obligations determined by effective legal documents, and the mode of performance changed from joint and several liability to sharing and performance by shares. The content of this agreement hinders the binding force of Zhu and Yang's joint liability in the original effective legal documents, and now Yang and Zhu have fulfilled their obligations as agreed. Therefore, the remaining 40,000 yuan debt should be paid by. The author agrees with the first opinion. The reasons are as follows: 1. Li's failure to fulfill the settlement agreement is a failure to fulfill the interests of the other party. Article 47 of China's General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that all partners shall be jointly and severally liable for the losses incurred by the partnership. Internally, it shall be shared according to the debt or investment proportion agreed in the agreement. In foreign relations, all partners conduct civil activities as a unified whole. In the settlement agreement signed between Tang and the three executed persons, Tang gave up the debt of 20,000 yuan, which was a waiver for the other party as a whole, not for someone. At present, Li's non-performance refers to the other party's non-performance of the settlement agreement Paragraph 2 of Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that if the applicant for execution reaches a settlement agreement with the person subjected to execution due to fraud or coercion, or the parties perform a settlement agreement, the people's court may, upon the application of the parties, resume the execution of the original effective legal documents. Now, due to Li's non-performance, Tang applied to resume the execution of the original effective legal documents, that is, to resume the execution of all the contents, including the execution of the three persons who were jointly and severally liable. The existing debt of 40,000 yuan has not been fulfilled, and the three executed persons shall bear joint liability. 2. It is in line with the principle of good faith to add Zhu and Yang to bear joint liability for debts. Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that civil litigation should follow the principle of good faith. The execution procedure is an integral part of civil litigation, and the requirement of good faith in the execution process means that both parties are required to keep their promises and pursue their own interests without harming the interests of others and society. In order to restore the damaged interest pattern, Tang made the biggest concession in the amount and way of performance, which was a reasonable punishment for his rights and interests. As the executor, we should follow the principle of good faith and fulfill the agreement signed by both parties. Now the executed party fails to perform the agreement. If Zhu and Yang are not additionally held jointly and severally liable, it will happen that the person subjected to execution violates the principle of good faith in the agreement, but changes the amount and way of commitment because of the settlement agreement, thus reducing the responsibility of the person subjected to execution, damaging the rights of the applicant, benefiting those who fail to fulfill the principle of good faith and damaging those who follow the principle of good faith. 3. It is in line with the legislative purpose to increase Zhu and Yang's joint liability. Partners are still responsible for repaying part or all of the debts that exceed their share. Joint and several liability is an aggravated liability. The design of joint liability can avoid the risk that some partners can't claim for compensation because of insufficient payment ability, reduce the cost of claim and protect creditors. On the other hand, it can also prevent the partners from letting the partners who are unable to perform bear most of the obligations in the settlement agreement, and let the partners who are able to perform bear less responsibilities, which is unfair to the creditors. The above is the relevant knowledge compiled by Bian Xiao for everyone. I believe you have a general understanding through the above knowledge. If you encounter more complicated legal problems, please visit the website for online consultation with lawyers.

Legal objectivity:

Article 170 of the Civil Code: If two or more persons commit acts that endanger the personal and property safety of others, and the acts of one or more of them cause damage to others, and the specific infringer can be identified, the infringer shall bear the responsibility; If the specific infringer cannot be determined, the actor shall bear joint and several liability.