債權讓與規定在我國民法中，在實務之運作上，小至民眾間，大至公司間之商業行為均是每天不斷不斷出現的法律行為，惟一旦遇到履行上之爭議，而須透過國家之強制執行手段實現債權時，原本未見諸於規定中之要件浮現，是否有利於民眾的權益？這些未見諸條文中之要件，對於人民依債權讓與關係主張權利時，是保障權利的履行，或是增加不必要之手續，尚有討論的空間。
本文先就債權讓與相關要件之解釋、定義加以分析，並提出相關判決就債權讓與規定之適用，以了解相關規定如何解決民事間債權讓與之爭議，各當事人應如何解讀法條之規定，才不致權利實現之過程受阻。
債權讓與關係間須透過地方法院民事執行處代人民實現權利時，地方法院民事執行處須審核相關要件，最高法院提出了不得責由地方法院民事執行處代為通知之見解，這是否能夠讓權利義務關係更明確，又或是添加法所無之要求而限制人民權利之行使，本文希望透過立法原意、權利實現管道之救濟、原債權人、債務人及債權受讓人之各種角度，探討最高法院之見解是否妥適，再導出本文之結論，以供參考。
The Assignment of Debt is regulated by the Civil Code. Commercial activities between people or companies are different kinds of juridical acts which are constantly occurring on a daily basis. However, if a debt, which involves elements not expressly regulated in the articles, should be enforced through compulsory execution when dispute arises, whether take the above-mentioned elements as part of the compulsory execution requirements is really in favor of the creditors or debtors? There is possibility to discuss.
This article includes the analysis of the definition and interpretation of related elements of assignment of debt, as well as how the disputes of assignment of debt be solved by applied the related rules in accordance with the relevant judgments in scope of civil law.
The district court should verify the requirements when enforce a debt through compulsory execution procedure. The Supermen Court made a decision that, when enforce a debt which involves debt assignment, the district court should not play a role in notifying the debtor. Whether this decision clarify the rights and obligations between creditors and debtors, or only restrict the parties' right on the debt by adding such meaningless requirement. In this article, I will interpret the decision of the Supreme Court through different points of view to reach a conclusion.
