【摘要】：自2015年新民訴解釋引入重復(fù)起訴與禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則以來(lái),禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則逐漸得到民事訴訟法學(xué)界的重視,學(xué)者們普遍認(rèn)為無(wú)論是在我國(guó)還是大陸法系國(guó)家,禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的理論和實(shí)踐均涉及諸多問(wèn)題,其中最為關(guān)鍵的是如何審查和判斷“重復(fù)起訴”。民訴解釋247條給出的構(gòu)成要件內(nèi)涵過(guò)小而外延過(guò)大,適用性較弱,無(wú)法滿足司法實(shí)踐的現(xiàn)實(shí)需要,導(dǎo)致不同法院對(duì)同一規(guī)則的理解和適用不一致甚至相互沖突、矛盾。此外,由于禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則牽涉的相關(guān)理論較為廣泛,也非一條解釋所能涵蓋。另一方面,由于國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者對(duì)禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的研究方興未艾,仍局限于國(guó)外制度引進(jìn)的層面,尚未能結(jié)合國(guó)內(nèi)法院具體裁判中存在的問(wèn)題開展綜合研究。然而,明晰禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則各構(gòu)成要件的具體內(nèi)容及相關(guān)的法律效力,通過(guò)對(duì)民訴解釋247條進(jìn)行學(xué)理上的再解釋,十分有利于禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則得到合理高效的適用。鑒于此,筆者認(rèn)為有必要對(duì)禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則相關(guān)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行探討。本文包括引言、正文、結(jié)語(yǔ)三個(gè)部分。正文包括五個(gè)部分:第一部分:裁判案例引入與問(wèn)題引出。本部分通過(guò)舉示與禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則相關(guān)的典型案例,提出人民法院在適用禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則時(shí)存在的問(wèn)題,以期引出下文對(duì)該規(guī)則更為詳細(xì)的論述。筆者結(jié)合理論分析案例,認(rèn)為法院在適用禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則時(shí)存在“判斷前后訴當(dāng)事人同一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)過(guò)于機(jī)械”、“訴訟標(biāo)的的識(shí)別標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不一”、“對(duì)重復(fù)起訴的審查局限于當(dāng)事人的陳述”等問(wèn)題。本部分所列示的三個(gè)典型案例當(dāng)然無(wú)法反映法院在適用禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則時(shí)存在的所有問(wèn)題,但是此三個(gè)問(wèn)題具有相當(dāng)?shù)拇硇?是本文將集中精力解決的重要問(wèn)題。第二部分:本部分圍繞一事不再理原則與禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的表里關(guān)系展開論述。通過(guò)明晰禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的內(nèi)涵及其規(guī)范趣旨,形成對(duì)禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的初步認(rèn)識(shí)。進(jìn)而立足于比較法的研究視角,窺探一事不再理原則應(yīng)有的內(nèi)涵,從而明確一事不再理原則與禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則之間的指導(dǎo)與被指導(dǎo)的關(guān)系。由于本文主要研究訴訟系屬語(yǔ)境下的禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則,將其與同受一事不再理原則指導(dǎo)的既判力理論進(jìn)行比較,探查二者存在的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別,以期避免在理解適用過(guò)程中出現(xiàn)混淆。第三部分:禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的構(gòu)成要件。本文采用“兩分說(shuō)”,主要從當(dāng)事人和訴訟標(biāo)的兩個(gè)方面展開論述,以此作為判斷前后訴是否同一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)共通并不能作為獨(dú)立的構(gòu)成要件而僅能作為判斷前后訴是否屬于同一糾紛的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。此外,前后訴當(dāng)事人相同當(dāng)然屬于禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的構(gòu)成要件,在廣義的禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則之下,前后訴當(dāng)事人不同仍然可能構(gòu)成重復(fù)起訴,只不過(guò)要求后訴原告在前訴中提起反訴而不得另行起訴。第四部分:禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則轄下的抵銷抗辯和部分請(qǐng)求。本部分主要討論前訴當(dāng)事人在后訴中以同一債權(quán)主張抵銷抗辯和標(biāo)的可分債權(quán)人分別向法院提出部分請(qǐng)求的問(wèn)題。前者包括訴訟先行、抗辯先行和抗辯共存三種類型,由于法院對(duì)抵銷抗辯的審理發(fā)生既判力,而對(duì)債權(quán)做出的給付判決并沒(méi)有直接變動(dòng)權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系的效果,因此可以允許當(dāng)事人先起訴后抗辯,反之不可。在禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則語(yǔ)境下討論部分請(qǐng)求實(shí)非難事,理論上的通說(shuō)認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)通過(guò)訴的擴(kuò)張解決,而不允許當(dāng)事人另行起訴。第五部分:禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的重塑。本部分包括禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的制度安排和禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則的具體的適用方法。首先,不僅法院可依職權(quán)調(diào)查當(dāng)事人的起訴是否構(gòu)成重復(fù)訴訟,對(duì)方當(dāng)事人亦可提出程序型抗辯以排除法院的管轄。其次,禁止重復(fù)起訴規(guī)則與既判力遮斷效聯(lián)系密切卻實(shí)屬兩端,筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)分別規(guī)制,并行規(guī)制容易導(dǎo)致適用混亂、相互襲擾。
[Abstract]:Since the introduction of the rules of repeated prosecution and prohibition of duplication of prosecution in 2015, the rules of prohibiting repeated prosecution have been paid more attention to in the civil procedure law circle. Scholars generally believe that both in China and in civil law countries, the theory and practice of prohibiting repeated prosecution rules are involved in many problems. How to review and judge the "repeated prosecution". The 247 articles of the interpretation of the people's complaints are too small, too extensive and weak in applicability, which can not meet the practical needs of judicial practice, which leads to the different courts' understanding and application of the same rules, which are inconsistent, even conflicting, and contradictory. In addition, the relevant rules involving the prohibition of repeated prosecution rules are related. On the other hand, the study of the rules for the prohibition of repeated prosecution is still in the ascendant, and it is still limited to the introduction of foreign institutions and has not been able to carry out a comprehensive study of the problems existing in the specific referees of the domestic courts. However, it is clear that the elements of the rules of repeated prosecution are prohibited. In view of this, the author thinks it is necessary to discuss the rules related to the prohibition of repeated prosecution. This article includes the introduction, the text, and the conclusion of the 247 parts. The text contains three parts. This part includes five parts: the first part: the introduction of the referee's case and the problem elicited. This part puts forward the problems of the people's court in the application of the rules of prohibiting repeated prosecution, in order to elicit a more detailed discussion of the rule. In the application of the rules for the prohibition of repeated prosecution, there are three typical cases shown in this part cannot reflect the application of the court in the application of "the standard of the same party before and after judgment is too mechanical", "the standard of recognition of the subject matter is different", and the "review of the repeated prosecution is limited to the statement of the parties". All the problems existing in the rule, but the three problems are quite representative, which are the important problems that this article will concentrate on. The second part: this part discusses the relationship between the no longer principle and the rules of the prohibition of repeated prosecution. A preliminary understanding of the rules for the prohibition of duplication of prosecution, and based on the perspective of comparative law, to explore the connotation of the principle of no longer principle, and to clarify the relationship between the guidance and the guidance between the principle of no longer and the rules of the prohibition of repeated prosecution. It compares with the theory of res judicata, which is under the guidance of the principle of no longer principle, and probes into the relations and differences between the two, in order to avoid confusion in the process of understanding and application. The third part: the constitution of the rule of prohibiting repeated prosecution. This article adopts the "two points", and mainly discusses the two aspects of the parties and the subject of litigation. This is the standard of judging whether or not the front and back suit is the same. It can not be used as an independent constituent element but can only be used as the standard of judging whether the front and back complaints belong to the same dispute. In addition, the same party and former litigants are of course the constituent elements of the rules of prohibition of repeated prosecution. Different people may still constitute a repeated prosecution, but the plaintiff is only required to file a counterclaim in the former lawsuit and not to be prosecuted separately. The fourth part: the counterplea and some requests under the rules of the prohibition of repeated prosecution. This part mainly discusses the former litigant in the latter lawsuit against the counterplea and the marked creditor in the same claim. The former includes three types of requests to the court. The former includes the litigation forerunner, the counterplea and the defense coexistence, because the court has the force of adjudications on the trial of the counterplea, and the payment judgment made to the creditor's right does not directly change the effect of the right and obligation relationship. Therefore, the party may be allowed to prosecute after the defense, and vice versa. In the context of prohibiting the rules of repeated prosecution, it is not difficult to discuss part of the request. In theory, the theory that the party should be solved through the expansion of the lawsuit and not allow the parties to prosecute separately. The fifth part: the remolding of the rules of the prohibition of repeated prosecution. This part includes the system arrangement of prohibiting the rules of repeated prosecution and the specific application of the rules of prohibiting repeated prosecution. First, not only the court can investigate whether the litigant's prosecution constitutes a repeated lawsuit, but the other party can also put forward a procedural defense to exclude the jurisdiction of the court. Secondly, the rules of the prohibition of repeated prosecution are closely related to the two ends of the ruling force, but the author thinks that it should be regulated separately, and the parallel regulation is easy to lead to the application mix. Messy and harassing each other.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 高峰;王琦;劉坤;;“一事不再理”原則及民事代理與代表制度的法理分析[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2016年10期

2 胡軼;;論民事訴訟當(dāng)事人恒定原則——兼評(píng)《民事訴訟法》司法解釋第249條之適用[J];天中學(xué)刊;2016年01期

3 祝里里;;既判力所及之特定繼受人研究——以臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的立法和司法實(shí)踐為素材[J];上海交通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年04期

4 張衛(wèi)平;;重復(fù)訴訟規(guī)制研究:兼論“一事不再理”[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2015年02期

5 張衛(wèi)平;;既判力相對(duì)性原則:根據(jù)、例外與制度化[J];法學(xué)研究;2015年01期

6 段文波;;日本重復(fù)起訴禁止原則及其類型化析解[J];比較法研究;2014年05期

7 胡軍輝;劉佳美;;民事既判力客觀范圍擴(kuò)張的理論及評(píng)析——兼論我國(guó)解決民事既判力客觀范圍擴(kuò)張之路徑[J];湘潭大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年04期

8 張曉茹;;再論訴訟擔(dān)當(dāng)——以擔(dān)當(dāng)人和被擔(dān)當(dāng)人在實(shí)體法和程序法上的關(guān)系為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2012年02期

9 常廷彬;;試論特定繼受人與既判力主體范圍擴(kuò)張[J];社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年08期

10 段文波;;日本民事訴訟法上部分請(qǐng)求學(xué)說(shuō)與判例評(píng)說(shuō)[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2010年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 鄭陽(yáng);重復(fù)訴訟問(wèn)題研究[D];河南大學(xué);2012年

2 王艷紅;一事不再理原則中“一事”之界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2162755