本文的问题意识来源于执行中能否以及如何审查实体事项。对这一问题的回答，实务界与理论界往往站在对立的立场。这样的难以调和的状态影响着我国审执分离制度的进一步改革以及自有的执行理论共识的达成。为了探求这一问题的理论及实务根源，本文综合运用了比较研究方法、实证调研方法、案例分析方法，获得一手的实证资料及比较法的文献材料，在此基础上综合运用法理学/法社会学以及法解释学的分析方法尝试进行探索。本文构建了我国本土的形式审查说、有限的实质审查说以及德国法的形式化原则及其配套制度三种模式，对于执行中实体事项的审查进行分析和论述。我国形式审查说基于所移植的审执分离等理念而形成，绝对的形式审查说主张执行程序不能审查实体事项。但这一内核在我国的司法实践下一再的被突破，执行中的形式审查说也逐渐与我国民事领域的形式审查概念类同，在部分实体事项上仅在审查方式上要求进行形式审查。德国法模式下，通过执行推论系统、执行文赋予制度、执行救济的双轨制、暂时命令等制度将实体权利义务事项的终局审查排除出执行程序的权限范围，执行机构仅仅审查“形式化”的实体事项，即使允许其审查形式化原则的松动事项，也通过证据证明手段、法律解释方法等进行限制，德国法模式得以保有审执分离的基本立场。我国因并未有配套制度对于实体权利义务事项的审查进行分流，大量的实体事项也并未进行形式化而滞留于执行领域留待审查判断。在我国的责任制系统下，执行机构不得不审查实体事项，并逐渐形成了有限的实质审查模式。有限的实质审查说是审判型模式、调解型模式以及执行中的形式审查模式相互作用的产物，其允许对于实体权利义务事项进行有限的实质审查，参照适用民事证据规则，大量适用正式的及非正式的执行听证程序。在三种模式的具象化下，本文进一步选取执行中的租赁权的审查、被执行人到期债权的执行以及共有不动产的执行进行具体分析。通过应用形式审查模式、有限的实质审查模式或是引入德国法模式进行比较分析，以期体现并讨论不同模式的优劣、适用条件及可能性的方案。

This dissertation addresses issues relating to the review of substantive matters in China’s civil enforcement procedure, including whether courts should and how courts should review substantive matters in the civil enforcement procedure. Academia and practitioners often take opposite positions when answering these questions. Such an irreconcilable state affects the further reform of the separation of trial and enforcement in China as well as the formation of a theoretical consensus on domestic civil enforcement. In order to explore the fundamental underlying reasons of this problem in theory and in practice, by conducting empirical research, case analysis and comparative research, the author has obtained first-hand empirical data and academic materials of comparative law. Based on these data and materials, this dissertation tries to explore the answer to these questions by using analytical methods of jurisprudence, legal sociology and legal hermeneutics.This dissertation constructs three modes, which are the domestic theory of formal review, the theory of limited substantive review, and the principle of formalization and its supporting system under German law, and tries to use the three modes to analyze and discuss the review of substantive matters in the civil enforcement procedure. The domestic theory of formal review is mainly based on the idea of separation of trial and enforcement, and the theory of absolute formal review argues that substantive matters cannot be reviewed in the civil enforcement procedure. However, in judicial practice, the core of the idea of separation of trial and enforcement has not been followed consistently, and the theory of formal review in civil enforcement is gradually assimilated to the theory of formal review in civil litigation. Under the German law mode, by using the system of inference in enforcement, the system of grant of a certificate in enforcement, the dual-track system in enforcement remedy and the system of the interim order, the final review of substantive rights and obligations are excluded from the scope of authority of the civil enforcement procedure, and the enforcement agency can only review "formalized" substantive matters. Even in the circumstance where the agency is allowed to review the “loose matters”（Auflockerungen der Formalisierung） under the formalization principle, the German law also restricts the means of proof and the method of legal interpretation. In this way, the German law mode successfully maintains the basic idea of separation of trial and enforcement. However, as China does not have a supporting system to review substantive rights and obligations in the civil enforcement procedure, a large number of substantive matters have not been formalized and remain in the civil enforcement procedure for review and adjudication. Under China’s system of accountability, courts’ enforcement divisions have to review substantive matters, and therefore have gradually formed a limited substantial review mode. The limited substantial review mode is the result of interactions between the trial mode and the mediation mode in civil litigation and the formal review mode in civil enforcement. It allows a limited substantive review of substantive rights and obligations by applying civil evidence rules and by applying both formal and informal enforcement hearing procedures.Based on these three modes, this dissertation further selects the following three areas for concrete analysis: review of leasehold in civil enforcement, enforcement of creditor's right due, and enforcement of jointly owned real estate. By comparing and analyzing the application results under the three modes, the author aims to identify and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the three modes, and tries to identify applicable conditions and possible solutions in the context of China’s civil enforcement procedure.