本文選題：爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn) + 爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)效��； 參考：《南京大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：訴訟標(biāo)的為當(dāng)事人攻擊防御目標(biāo),并為法院審理裁判對(duì)象,故傳統(tǒng)民事訴訟理論將既判力范圍限定為裁判主文判斷,裁判理由部分不被賦予裁判效力。成為當(dāng)事人爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)的事實(shí)的判斷,倘若對(duì)后訴有一定的約束力,本文簡(jiǎn)稱為"爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)效力"。承認(rèn)這一點(diǎn)對(duì)于預(yù)防矛盾裁判、促進(jìn)訴訟經(jīng)濟(jì)、彌補(bǔ)傳統(tǒng)既判力理論不足有重要的理論與實(shí)踐價(jià)值。英美及大陸法系分別以"爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)排除效"和"事實(shí)證明效"處理爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷效力。我國(guó)最高法院以司法解釋方式確立"預(yù)決效力規(guī)則"解決該裁判理由效力。但該規(guī)則理論基礎(chǔ)不明,適用范圍不限于對(duì)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)的判斷,模糊事實(shí)證明規(guī)則與裁判效力規(guī)則,其正當(dāng)性存在很大爭(zhēng)議,無(wú)助于我國(guó)裁判效力制度發(fā)展。本文認(rèn)為有必要通過(guò)比較法的功能比較方式,提煉出背后制約爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)效力因素(本文稱為爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)程序保障群)。通過(guò)對(duì)照我國(guó)圍繞爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)程序保障,重新闡釋我國(guó)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷效力規(guī)則。第一部分通過(guò)梳理我國(guó)既有文本規(guī)范和既有研究,指出既有成果在研究方法之不足,以提煉出本文的核心問(wèn)題并闡述本文論證思路。我國(guó)當(dāng)前圍繞爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)和預(yù)決條款之間關(guān)系研究存在缺乏實(shí)踐樣本分析、理論體系整合等缺憾。本文擬以代表性裁判文書(shū)為分析樣本,檢討預(yù)決效力條款實(shí)施現(xiàn)狀,通過(guò)制度生成史批判現(xiàn)行預(yù)決效力條款"不合時(shí)宜性",試圖解析爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷效力背后制約因素,以重新闡釋我國(guó)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷效力規(guī)則。第二部分檢討我國(guó)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)效力實(shí)踐現(xiàn)狀及所引發(fā)弊端。本文將檢索到的232份裁判文書(shū)分組歸類,并以23份代表性裁判文書(shū)作為分析樣本。實(shí)踐中多援引預(yù)決效力條款作為爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)效力適用依據(jù),但在效力本質(zhì)、規(guī)制范圍等層面理解存有差異。該種操作方式將造成證明制度和裁判效力制度混淆、預(yù)決效力相對(duì)性過(guò)度泛化、訴訟突襲、加重對(duì)方當(dāng)事人舉證責(zé)任等種種流弊。第三部分是分析我國(guó)預(yù)決效力條款在現(xiàn)行立法框架中"不合時(shí)宜性"問(wèn)題。預(yù)決效力條款法理基礎(chǔ)存在擬制真實(shí)說(shuō)及客觀真實(shí)說(shuō)爭(zhēng)議,并且兩種學(xué)說(shuō)旗鼓相當(dāng)。該現(xiàn)狀不僅直接反映在對(duì)裁判效力理解層面,也間接地反映在最高人民法院官方前后不一態(tài)度上。預(yù)決效力條款移植于前蘇聯(lián),隨著我國(guó)社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)制度的轉(zhuǎn)型,國(guó)家集權(quán)形式已經(jīng)無(wú)法適應(yīng)現(xiàn)代社會(huì)管理模式,必然向回應(yīng)性國(guó)家和糾紛解決型司法程序轉(zhuǎn)型。因此,前蘇聯(lián)建構(gòu)預(yù)決效力條款時(shí)所特有的審判職能、社會(huì)意識(shí)形態(tài)、程序目標(biāo)等語(yǔ)境,在我國(guó)當(dāng)前的司法環(huán)境中儼然已經(jīng)被置換。第四部分是介紹不同爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)效力選擇進(jìn)路,探尋其背后共同法理基礎(chǔ)并分析背后制約因素。英美法系采取"爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)排除效",大陸法系的既判力遮斷效具備同樣功能,而晚近日本以及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)理論則逐漸轉(zhuǎn)向承認(rèn)其有裁判效力。本文提出應(yīng)當(dāng)將該程序保障群解析為爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)整理程度、法官釋明程度、爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷復(fù)審程度及特別救濟(jì)程度等。第五部分是將上述制約因素同我國(guó)現(xiàn)行制度進(jìn)行對(duì)照。經(jīng)對(duì)照,我國(guó)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)整理程序無(wú)規(guī)則、法官釋明權(quán)制度未規(guī)范、爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷普通救濟(jì)渠道被架空、爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷特別救濟(jì)渠道不通暢。我國(guó)除了改革目標(biāo)中的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)復(fù)審程度可同美國(guó)、德國(guó)相比擬以外,其余要素均無(wú)法同其相提并論;而以上程序保障因素的缺陷即不足以支撐爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)效制度引進(jìn)。第六部分則是本文試圖利用現(xiàn)行制度,通過(guò)解釋論重構(gòu)我國(guó)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)效力規(guī)則。認(rèn)為我國(guó)裁判文書(shū)在判決理由部分爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷應(yīng)當(dāng)適用公文書(shū)證明規(guī)則,但僅具備形式證明力,而不具備實(shí)質(zhì)證明力。形式證明力為公文書(shū)經(jīng)推定直接產(chǎn)生;實(shí)質(zhì)證明力則需法官自由心證判斷。然而,當(dāng)特定訴訟政策價(jià)值需求足以超越爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)程序保障時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)在極端例外情形中承認(rèn)爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)判斷在后訴中拘束力,即被賦予遮斷效力。
[Abstract]:For the parties to attack the defense target and judge the referee for the court, the traditional civil procedure theory defines the scope of the res judicata as the judgment of the referee, and the part of the referee is not given the effect of the referee. It has important theoretical and practical values to prevent contradictory referees, promote litigation economy and make up for the deficiency of traditional res judicata theory. The Anglo American and continental law system, respectively, deal with the effectiveness of dispute focus by "disputing point elimination effect" and "fact proof effect". The Supreme Court of our country establishes the prejudicial rule by judicial interpretation. "To solve the justification of the referee, but the theoretical basis of the rule is unknown, the scope of application is not limited to the judgment of the focus of the dispute. The justification of the rules of fuzzy fact proof and the validity of the referee is very controversial, and it is not conducive to the development of the system of referee effectiveness in our country. This article holds that it is necessary to refine the back system through the comparative method of comparative law. The effect factor of the dispute focus (this article is called the procedural guarantee group of the focus of dispute). By comparing China's focus on the procedural protection of the dispute focus, it reinterprets the rule of judging the effectiveness of the dispute focus in our country. The first part, through combing the existing text standard and the existing research in our country, points out the shortcomings of the research methods of the existing fruits in order to extract the core of this article. At present, there is a lack of practical sample analysis and theoretical system integration in the study of the relationship between the focus of the dispute and the predetermined clause in our country. The present situation of the implementation of the predetermined validity clause is reviewed with the representative referee documents as the analysis sample, and the current predetermined validity clause is criticized by the history of the system generation. In the second part, the second part reviews the current situation of the effectiveness of the dispute focus in China and the disadvantages. This paper classifies the 232 referee documents and uses 23 representative referee documents as the analysis samples. In practice, the provision of predetermined effectiveness is used as the basis for the application of the dispute focus, but there are differences in the understanding of the essence of the effectiveness and the scope of the regulation. This operation will cause confusion in the system of proof and the effectiveness of the referee, the overgeneralization of the relative predetermination effect, the raids of the litigation, and the aggravation of the other parties' burden of proof, and so on. The three part is the analysis of the "inopportune" issue in the current legislative framework of the predetermination effectiveness clause in China. The legal basis of the pre determination validity clause exists in the legal theory and the objective truth, and the two doctrines are quite equal. The present situation is not only directly reflected in the understanding of the effectiveness of the referee, but also indirectly reflected in the Supreme People's court officer. There is no attitude towards the former Soviet Union. With the transition of the former Soviet Union, with the transformation of the social and economic system in China, the form of national centralization has been unable to adapt to the modern social management model. It is bound to transform to the responsive state and dispute resolution judicial procedure. Therefore, the former Soviet Union constructs the prejudicial provisions of the trial function and society. The context of ideology and procedural goals has been replaced in the current judicial environment of our country. The fourth part is to introduce the choice approach of the effectiveness of different disputes, explore the common legal basis behind it and analyze the factors behind it. The Anglo American law system adopts the "dispute resolution effect", and the jurisdiction of the civil law system has the same function, In recent years, the theory of Taiwan area in Japan and China gradually turned to adjudication effectiveness. This paper proposed that the procedure guarantee group should be analyzed as the degree of disputed focus, the degree of judge's interpretation, the degree of review and the degree of special relief, and so on. The fifth part is to carry out the above-mentioned restrictive factors with the current system of our country. According to the contrast, the process of disputed focus in China is irregular, the judge's interpretation right system is not standardized, the focus of the dispute is judged to be the common remedy channel, and the focus of the dispute is unobstructed. The retrial degree of the focus of the dispute in our country can not be compared with that of the United States and Germany. In the sixth part, this article attempts to reconstruct our country's dispute focus effect rules by using the current system and reconstructs the rules of the dispute focus in our country by using the present system. Proof force does not have substantial proof. Formal proof is the direct production of official documents; substantive proof is required by the judge's free evidence. However, when the demand for specific litigation policy is sufficient to exceed the procedural guarantee of the dispute focus, it should be recognized in the extreme exceptions that the focus of the dispute should be determined in the post prosecution. Give off the effect.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1
，

本文編號(hào)：1950612