我国现行法规范对于代持股权的归属缺乏明确规定。在以股权为执行标的的执行程序中，面对隐名股东提出的异议，执行法院在判定隐名股东的民事权益是否足以排除执行时，通常会陷入物债二分的思维定势，忽略了现实生活中复杂多样的股权代持类型对当事人间权益对抗态势的影响。从类型化角度而言，股权代持协议中的不同的权利义务安排使得股权代持呈现出代理构造、信托构造和隐名合伙构造，隐名股东也因此分为真正的股权人、信托受益权人和按份共有权人等不同类型，进而影响着是否排除执行的结论走向。 从权利救济的程序设计来看，隐名股东在进入执行程序后可选择的救济程序包括执行异议、执行异议之诉、案外人申请再审和第三人撤销之诉。在程序性救济阶段，执行异议多以被法院驳回为常态，但股权冻结前另案确权裁判的存在构成了例外。在实体性救济阶段，针对“变更股权登记的执行”，隐名股东的权利主张与原生效裁判存在冲突，应借助案外人再审或第三人撤销之诉寻求救济；针对“以股权为担保物的金钱债权执行”和“不以股权为担保物的金钱债权执行”，隐名股东的排除执行请求均不以否定原生效裁判为前提，应通过执行异议之诉加以救济。就程序整合而言，第三人撤销之诉与案外人申请再审在功能上高度类似，可考虑以前者替代后者。 从权利救济的最终实现来看，隐名股东排除代持股权执行的请求能否被执行法院所支持，除却实体法应然层面的结论，更有赖于程序展开过程中隐名股东与申请执行人的具体攻击防御过程。在具体的攻防展开上，隐名股东与申请执行人依据法律规范所分配的举证责任展开攻防，组成“请求原因-抗辩”的体系。在执行异议之诉中，应由隐名股东根据股权代持的不同构造证明民事权益的存在，并由法院判断该权益是否具有优先性。在隐名股东就请求原因进行证明的前提下，申请执行人可抗辩股权代持协议无效或自己受股权登记效力保护，并对抗辩事由的成立承担举证责任。在第三人撤销之诉中，应由隐名股东对原生效裁判错误且损害其民事权益承担举证责任。作为防御手段，申请执行人可举证证明自己善意取得股权，即抗辩隐名股东所主张的民事权益已消灭。

Chinese Law regulates no clear stipulation on the ownership of equity in dormant investment. In the enforcement with the equity as the subject matter, faced with objections raised by dormant shareholders, the court usually falls into the fixed logic mode of traditional civil rights such as real right and creditor's right when determining whether the dormant shareholder enjoys “civil rights and interests sufficient to exclude enforcement”, and ignores the complex and diverse types of dormant investment in real life which have an important impact on the confrontation between the rights and interests of the parties. In the perspective of type analysis, according to the different division of rights and obligations in the dormant investment agreements, dormant investment can prevail three structures, including principal-agent structure, trust structure and dormant partnership structure. Therefore, dormant shareholders shall be divided into real shareholders, trust beneficiaries and co-owners by share. For different types of dormant shareholders, the conclusions on whether they enjoy “civil rights and interests sufficient to exclude enforcement” can differ. In terms of the choice of relief procedure, the procedure that the dormant shareholder can choose include enforcement objection, enforcement objection action, application for civil retrial and third-party revocation action. In procedural relief for error of enforcement, the enforcement objection to the subject matter is usually overruled by the court, unless the objection is filed according to the effective judgment of another case. In substantive relief for error of enforcement, regarding “the enforcement for changing shareholder registration”, the dormant shareholder shall seek relief by applying for retrial or directly filing a third-party revocation action. Regarding “the enforcement for money obligatory right with equity pledge” and “the enforcement for money obligatory right without equity pledge”, the request for exclude enforcement is not based on the revocation of the original judgment or ruling, and the dormant shareholder shall seek relief by filing an enforcement objection action. In terms of procedural integration, the third-party revocation action can be considered as an alternative to the retrial application, because the functions of the two procedures are highly similar. From the perspective of the ultimate realization of the relief, whether the request of dormant shareholders to exclude enforcement can be supported by the court depends not only on the provisions of the substantive law, but also on the specific attack and defense process of dormant shareholders and the applicant for enforcement in the process of proceeding. In the specific development of attack and defense, the dormant shareholder and the applicant for enforcement carry out attack and defense according to the burden of proof allocated by the law norms, forming a “claim-defense” system. In the enforcement objection action, the dormant shareholder shall prove what civil rights and interests they enjoy according to different types of dormant investment, and the court shall judge whether the rights and interests are sufficient to exclude enforcement. In contrast to that, the applicant for enforcement can prove the existence of defenses, such as the invalidity of the dormant investment agreement and the reliance interest of the applicant in shareholder registration. In the third-party revocation action, the dormant shareholder shall bear the burden of proof for the error of the original judgment and the damage to his civil rights and interests. As a means of defense, the applicant for enforcement can prove that he obtained the equity in good faith, which means the civil rights and interests claimed by the dormant shareholder have been eliminated.