本文選題：第三人撤銷之訴 + 原告適格��； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：第三人撤銷之訴是我國第三人事后保障程序中的重要環(huán)節(jié),它的存在有其正當(dāng)性及必要性,并充分發(fā)揮其效能——遏制惡意訴訟,為受他人間判決效力所及的第三人提供有效、充分的事后救濟(jì)。在大陸法系其它國家和地區(qū),已形成成熟且到位的第三人撤銷訴訟制度,雖然各立法例的立法依據(jù)不同,但都體現(xiàn)出對(duì)第三人私權(quán)的保障本意。2012年,我國《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》(以下簡稱《民事訴訟法》)正式設(shè)置了第三人撤銷之訴制度。由于第三人撤銷之訴制度建立時(shí)間尚短,且《民事訴訟法》中關(guān)于該制度的規(guī)定過于籠統(tǒng)、概括,使得該制度在實(shí)務(wù)操作中存在諸多問題。我國第三人撤銷之訴制度的建構(gòu)與完善,核心問題是解決該制度的原告適格問題。由于我國第三人撤銷之訴屬繼受大陸法系其他立法例的產(chǎn)物,因而,比較分析各立法例,尤其是法國的第三人異議制度及我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的第三人撤銷之訴制度,可為我國探索建構(gòu)第三人撤銷之訴提供寶貴借鑒。然而任何制度的創(chuàng)設(shè)及完善不可能是一蹴而就的。本文以第三人撤銷之訴的原告適格問題為視角,通過分析第三人撤銷之訴制度的基本內(nèi)涵、性質(zhì)、功能及立法依據(jù),討論第三人撤銷之訴在我國存在的合理性,同時(shí)比較考察我國第三人撤銷之訴制度與法國及我國臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的撤銷訴訟制度,總結(jié)出我國第三人撤銷之訴制度在適用上存在的問題,包括訴訟主體混亂,適用范圍不清,濫訴問題突出,以及與其它程序間的協(xié)調(diào)問題等,同時(shí)嘗試給出合理可行的完善建議。只有厘清我國第三人撤銷之訴制度的適格原告,劃清該制度的適用范圍,并協(xié)調(diào)好相關(guān)程序間的關(guān)系,建立和完善既判力制度和訴訟告知制度,才可以真正使第三人撤銷之訴制度最大化的發(fā)揮遏制惡意訴訟、保障第三人權(quán)益的作用。中國的第三人撤銷之訴制度雖是舶來品,但通過合理的規(guī)劃及構(gòu)建,必將能形成有我國特色的事后保障程序,并與申請(qǐng)?jiān)賹徶贫�、�?zhí)行異議制度有機(jī)配合,形成成熟且完善的第三人事后保障體系。
[Abstract]:The action of the third party's revocation is an important link in the procedure of the third party's ex post protection in our country. Its existence has its legitimacy and necessity, and it can give full play to its efficiency-to contain the malicious lawsuit, and to provide the third party with the validity of the judgment between others. Adequate ex post relief In other countries and regions of the continental law system, a mature and effective third party revocation litigation system has been formed. Although the legislative basis of each legislative case is different, it reflects the original intention of protecting the private rights of the third party. China's Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "Civil procedure Law") has formally set up the third party to revoke the system. Due to the short time of establishment of the system of the third party's revocation, and the general provisions of the system in the Civil procedure Law, there are many problems in the practice of the system. The key problem in the construction and perfection of the system of third party revocation in our country is to solve the problem of the plaintiff's qualification. Since the third party's revocation in our country is the product of other legislations in the civil law system, this paper makes a comparative analysis of the various legislative cases, especially the third party dissent system in France and the third party revocation action system in Taiwan. It can provide valuable reference for our country to explore and construct the third party revocation action. However, the creation and perfection of any system cannot be accomplished overnight. From the angle of view of the plaintiff's qualification of the third party's revocation action, this paper discusses the rationality of the third party's revocation action in our country by analyzing the basic connotation, nature, function and legislative basis of the third party's revocation action system. At the same time, the author compares the third party revocation action system with the revocation litigation system in France and Taiwan, and summarizes the problems existing in the application of the third party revocation action system, including the confusion of litigation subjects and the unclear scope of application. The problems of overappeal and coordination with other procedures are prominent, and some reasonable and feasible suggestions are also given. Only by clarifying the suitable plaintiff of the third party revocation system in our country, defining the scope of application of the system, coordinating the relationship between the relevant procedures, establishing and perfecting the res judicata system and lawsuit informing system, Only then can the third party withdraw the action system to maximize the exertion to restrain the malicious lawsuit and to protect the third party's rights and interests. Although the system of third party revocation in China is imported, through reasonable planning and construction, it will be able to form the post-event safeguard procedure with Chinese characteristics, and cooperate organically with the system of application for retrial and the execution of dissent system. Form a mature and perfect third party post-protection system.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 胡軍輝;;論第三人撤銷之訴與周邊程序的協(xié)調(diào)[J];政治與法律;2015年08期

2 劉君博;;第三人撤銷之訴的程序建構(gòu)[J];法學(xué);2014年12期

3 王亞新;;第三人撤銷之訴原告適格的再考察[J];法學(xué)研究;2014年06期

4 王亞新;劉君博;;有關(guān)第三人撤銷之訴的另一種思考[J];民事程序法研究;2014年01期

5 吳澤勇;;第三人撤銷之訴的原告適格[J];法學(xué)研究;2014年03期

6 劉君博;;第三人撤銷之訴原告適格問題研究現(xiàn)行規(guī)范真的無法適用嗎?[J];中外法學(xué);2014年01期

7 宋春龍;蘇艷戀;;新民訴法第三人撤銷之訴原告適格問題研究[J];四川理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年05期

8 王福華;;第三人撤銷之訴適用研究[J];清華法學(xué);2013年04期

9 巢志雄;;法國第三人撤銷之訴研究——兼與我國新《民事訴訟法》第56條第3款比較[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2013年03期

10 張衛(wèi)平;;中國第三人撤銷之訴的制度構(gòu)成與適用[J];中外法學(xué);2013年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 林勁標(biāo);凌蔚;盧柱平;;第三人撤銷之訴猛增 糾錯(cuò)需要還是濫用訴權(quán)？[N];人民法院報(bào);2013年

2 高民智;;關(guān)于案外人撤銷之訴制度的理解與適用[N];人民法院報(bào);2012年

3 ;第三人撤銷判決訴訟的適用范圍[N];人民法院報(bào);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1853495