論我國(guó)民事二審程序中原審原告的撤回起訴權(quán)
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-06 17:39
【摘要】：撤訴作為當(dāng)事人行使處分權(quán)的一種訴訟行為，是當(dāng)事人意思自治在訴訟程序中的一種體現(xiàn)。因此，為了尊重和彰顯當(dāng)事人在民事訴訟中的主體地位，無(wú)論在我國(guó)還是在世界各國(guó)民事訴訟理論中，撤訴制度都是一項(xiàng)極為重要的訴訟制度。在我國(guó)，由于立法的不充分和不完善，我國(guó)的民事撤訴制度還存在許多的缺陷與不足，其中二審中原審原告是否享有撤回起訴權(quán)問(wèn)題一直以來(lái)都是理論界和司法實(shí)務(wù)部門存有爭(zhēng)議的話題。無(wú)論是2012年最新修訂頒布實(shí)施的新《民事訴訟法》還是此前的舊法，立法上都沒(méi)有予以明確規(guī)定。有鑒于此，本文由兩個(gè)司法實(shí)務(wù)案例在審理過(guò)程中所引發(fā)的一系列程序性問(wèn)題出發(fā)，進(jìn)而對(duì)我國(guó)民事二審程序中的原審原告是否應(yīng)當(dāng)享有撤回起訴權(quán)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了全面而系統(tǒng)的探討，以期在今后立法對(duì)于我國(guó)民事撤訴制度的完善及指導(dǎo)具體司法實(shí)務(wù)操作有所幫助。 本文除引言和結(jié)束語(yǔ)之外，分為以下四部分，總共兩萬(wàn)五千字左右： 第一部分是“問(wèn)題的提出——兩個(gè)案件引發(fā)的法律思考”。這部分首先由兩個(gè)司法實(shí)務(wù)案例在審理過(guò)程中因原審原告申請(qǐng)撤回起訴引發(fā)的一系列程序性問(wèn)題出發(fā)，指出審判實(shí)踐中存在著幾種不同的觀點(diǎn)和處理意見(jiàn)，進(jìn)而點(diǎn)出案件背后所折射出的法律問(wèn)題，即民事二審中原審原告是否具有撤回起訴權(quán)問(wèn)題。 第二部分是“民事撤訴制度的基本問(wèn)題”。民事二審中原審原告是否享有撤回起訴權(quán)的問(wèn)題畢竟是在我國(guó)民事撤訴制度背景下，對(duì)我國(guó)民事撤訴制度中存在的諸多不足和缺陷所提出的一種細(xì)問(wèn)，對(duì)之加以探討和分析自然離不開(kāi)撤訴制度理論的支撐。這部分，筆者對(duì)撤訴制度的基本理論、我國(guó)民事撤訴制度立法現(xiàn)狀及民事二審中能否撤回起訴問(wèn)題在現(xiàn)實(shí)中所面臨的司法困境進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)單的介紹和闡述，為下文針對(duì)這一問(wèn)題提出具體的完善之策提供理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)依據(jù)。 第三部分是“域外立法關(guān)于民事二審中原審原告撤回起訴權(quán)的比較考察”。他山之石，可以攻玉。這部分主要簡(jiǎn)介了大陸法系中德國(guó)、日本及我國(guó)臺(tái)灣地區(qū)相關(guān)立法現(xiàn)狀，通過(guò)比較分析域外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)，為我國(guó)完善撤訴制度的立法，，解決二審中原審原告能否撤訴問(wèn)題提供借鑒和參考。 第四部分是“我國(guó)民事二審中原審原告撤回起訴權(quán)之管見(jiàn)”。這部分筆者首先對(duì)目前我國(guó)學(xué)界關(guān)于二審中原審原告能否撤回起訴這一問(wèn)題所持的爭(zhēng)議觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)單的梳理并且從學(xué)理上作了一些簡(jiǎn)要評(píng)析和探討，肯定可取之處，分析論證不足之處，提出了筆者自己的觀點(diǎn)即我國(guó)民事二審中應(yīng)當(dāng)允許原審原告在二審中撤回起訴，但也應(yīng)當(dāng)完善一些配套的制度設(shè)計(jì)以實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)其二審撤回起訴權(quán)的限制適用。最后從制度設(shè)計(jì)層面對(duì)我國(guó)民事二審中原審原告撤回起訴權(quán)的正當(dāng)程序性構(gòu)建提出了一些具體的完善之策。
[Abstract]:Withdrawal as a litigant to exercise the right of disposition is a manifestation of party autonomy in the proceedings. Therefore, in order to respect and highlight the principal position of the parties in the civil action, the withdrawal system is an extremely important litigation system in both China and other countries in the world. In our country, due to the inadequacy and imperfection of the legislation, there are still many defects and deficiencies in the civil withdrawal system of our country. Whether the plaintiff of the original trial has the right to withdraw the prosecution in the second instance has always been a controversial topic in the theoretical circle and the judicial practice department. Neither the new Civil procedure Law, which was enacted in the latest revision in 2012, nor the old laws have been explicitly legislated. In view of this, this paper starts from a series of procedural problems caused by two cases of judicial practice in the course of trial. Then, the author makes a comprehensive and systematic discussion on whether the plaintiff of the original trial should enjoy the right of withdrawing the prosecution in the civil second instance procedure of our country. It is expected that the legislation will be helpful to the perfection of the civil withdrawal system and the guidance of specific judicial practice in the future. In addition to the introduction and concluding remarks, this paper is divided into the following four parts, a total of about 25000 words: the first part is "the question raised-the legal thinking caused by two cases". This part begins with a series of procedural problems arising from the withdrawal of the plaintiff's application for prosecution during the trial of two judicial practical cases, and points out that there are several different views and opinions on handling the case in the trial practice. Then points out the legal problems reflected behind the case, that is, whether the plaintiff of the original trial has the right to withdraw the complaint in the civil second instance. The second part is the basic problems of the civil withdrawal system. After all, the question of whether the plaintiff of the original trial enjoys the right to withdraw the complaint in the civil second instance is, after all, a detailed question on the shortcomings and defects of the civil withdrawal system in our country under the background of the civil withdrawal system. To explore and analyze the system can not be separated from the support of the withdrawal system. In this part, the author briefly introduces the basic theory of the withdrawal system, the current legislative situation of the civil withdrawal system in China and the judicial dilemma that the issue of withdrawing the prosecution in the civil second instance faces in reality. To provide theoretical and practical basis for the following suggestions to solve this problem. The third part is the comparative investigation on the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the prosecution in the civil second instance. The stone of other mountains can attack jade. This part mainly introduces the current legislation situation of Germany, Japan and Taiwan in the civil law system, through comparative analysis of the extraterritorial legislative experience, for our country to improve the system of withdrawal legislation. To solve the second instance plaintiff can withdraw the issue of reference and reference. The fourth part is the opinion of withdrawing the plaintiff's right of action in civil second instance in our country. This part of the author first of all on the current academic circles of our country on the issue of whether the plaintiff in the original trial can withdraw the prosecution of the dispute held a simple combing and from the theory of some brief comments and discussions, definitely the desirable place. By analyzing the inadequacies of the argumentation, the author puts forward his own viewpoint that the plaintiff of the original trial should be allowed to withdraw the suit in the second instance in our country, but some supporting system designs should be perfected to realize the limitation of the right to withdraw the prosecution in the second instance. Finally, from the aspect of system design, the author puts forward some concrete and perfect measures to construct the proper procedure of withdrawing the plaintiff's right of action in the civil second instance of our country.
【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】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1
本文編號(hào)：2168484
[Abstract]:Withdrawal as a litigant to exercise the right of disposition is a manifestation of party autonomy in the proceedings. Therefore, in order to respect and highlight the principal position of the parties in the civil action, the withdrawal system is an extremely important litigation system in both China and other countries in the world. In our country, due to the inadequacy and imperfection of the legislation, there are still many defects and deficiencies in the civil withdrawal system of our country. Whether the plaintiff of the original trial has the right to withdraw the prosecution in the second instance has always been a controversial topic in the theoretical circle and the judicial practice department. Neither the new Civil procedure Law, which was enacted in the latest revision in 2012, nor the old laws have been explicitly legislated. In view of this, this paper starts from a series of procedural problems caused by two cases of judicial practice in the course of trial. Then, the author makes a comprehensive and systematic discussion on whether the plaintiff of the original trial should enjoy the right of withdrawing the prosecution in the civil second instance procedure of our country. It is expected that the legislation will be helpful to the perfection of the civil withdrawal system and the guidance of specific judicial practice in the future. In addition to the introduction and concluding remarks, this paper is divided into the following four parts, a total of about 25000 words: the first part is "the question raised-the legal thinking caused by two cases". This part begins with a series of procedural problems arising from the withdrawal of the plaintiff's application for prosecution during the trial of two judicial practical cases, and points out that there are several different views and opinions on handling the case in the trial practice. Then points out the legal problems reflected behind the case, that is, whether the plaintiff of the original trial has the right to withdraw the complaint in the civil second instance. The second part is the basic problems of the civil withdrawal system. After all, the question of whether the plaintiff of the original trial enjoys the right to withdraw the complaint in the civil second instance is, after all, a detailed question on the shortcomings and defects of the civil withdrawal system in our country under the background of the civil withdrawal system. To explore and analyze the system can not be separated from the support of the withdrawal system. In this part, the author briefly introduces the basic theory of the withdrawal system, the current legislative situation of the civil withdrawal system in China and the judicial dilemma that the issue of withdrawing the prosecution in the civil second instance faces in reality. To provide theoretical and practical basis for the following suggestions to solve this problem. The third part is the comparative investigation on the right of the plaintiff to withdraw the prosecution in the civil second instance. The stone of other mountains can attack jade. This part mainly introduces the current legislation situation of Germany, Japan and Taiwan in the civil law system, through comparative analysis of the extraterritorial legislative experience, for our country to improve the system of withdrawal legislation. To solve the second instance plaintiff can withdraw the issue of reference and reference. The fourth part is the opinion of withdrawing the plaintiff's right of action in civil second instance in our country. This part of the author first of all on the current academic circles of our country on the issue of whether the plaintiff in the original trial can withdraw the prosecution of the dispute held a simple combing and from the theory of some brief comments and discussions, definitely the desirable place. By analyzing the inadequacies of the argumentation, the author puts forward his own viewpoint that the plaintiff of the original trial should be allowed to withdraw the suit in the second instance in our country, but some supporting system designs should be perfected to realize the limitation of the right to withdraw the prosecution in the second instance. Finally, from the aspect of system design, the author puts forward some concrete and perfect measures to construct the proper procedure of withdrawing the plaintiff's right of action in the civil second instance of our country.
【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】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 方芳;李彥;劉玨;;二審撤訴問(wèn)題初探[J];才智;2012年01期
2 李龍;論民事判決的既判力[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年04期
3 李海濤;;論民事二審程序中原告申請(qǐng)撤回起訴的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題——以現(xiàn)行法律框架下的民事審判實(shí)踐為視角[J];法律適用;2011年02期
4 占善剛;關(guān)于撤訴的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年04期
5 何國(guó)強(qiáng);;論民事訴訟二審中和解協(xié)議的性質(zhì)——最高人民法院2號(hào)指導(dǎo)性案例評(píng)析[J];北方法學(xué);2012年04期
6 黃瓊;;關(guān)于“一撤到底”問(wèn)題之管見(jiàn)[J];湖北成人教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年05期
7 李石山,彭歡燕;民事撤訴制度的若干問(wèn)題探討[J];河北法學(xué);2001年01期
8 王勇;;二審撤訴的處理之道——從“吳梅案”切入[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年10期
9 朱福勇;;析二審過(guò)程中撤回起訴程序的處理[J];人民司法;2010年04期
10 石珍;曾令抄;;論民事二審程序中原告撤訴權(quán)的司法適用——兼與李海濤法官商榷[J];成都理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期
本文編號(hào)：2168484
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/susongfa/2168484.html
最近更新
教材專著
