【摘要】：原告若在訴訟中提出意欲改變訴狀中列明的"訴訟請求和事實(shí)、理由",法官應(yīng)予妥善應(yīng)對。立法與司法解釋相關(guān)規(guī)定未能給予法官有效指引;實(shí)務(wù)界的處置未盡一致;相關(guān)學(xué)術(shù)探討受外國概念和理論羈絆。關(guān)于應(yīng)寬待訴的變更、特定情形下不允許訴的變更的理論結(jié)論雖可堪接受,但解釋力和說服力不足。對于訴訟具有決定性作用的是原告的訴訟目的。因此,以原告訴訟目的變動程度為依據(jù)重新進(jìn)行類型化整理是認(rèn)識和解決問題的較好方法。對于絕大多數(shù)變更申請應(yīng)予同意,因?yàn)樵V訟本應(yīng)具備對原告訴訟目的變動的一定包容力。對于原告訴訟根本目的發(fā)生替換的變更申請則不應(yīng)同意。決定是否同意變更申請的根本原因在于訴訟法上的價(jià)值選擇而非出于訴訟經(jīng)濟(jì)或者平衡雙方利益的考慮。案情陳述和原告訴訟目的是手段與目的的關(guān)系。案情陳述根本變化與原告訴訟根本目的替換是外在表征與內(nèi)在根據(jù)的關(guān)系。既然變更申請并非一律會被允許,那么傳統(tǒng)上認(rèn)為的"法官可以泛泛允許變更申請"或者"法官可以先同意申請嗣后再了解申請的具體內(nèi)容"的看法即不能成立。
[Abstract]:If the plaintiff wishes to change the "claim and fact, reason" listed in the petition, the judge shall respond appropriately. The relevant provisions of legislation and judicial interpretation fail to give effective guidance to judges; the disposal of practical circles is not completely consistent; the relevant academic discussions are restricted by foreign concepts and theories. The theoretical conclusion that the change should be appealable is acceptable, but the explanation and persuasion are not enough. What is decisive for the action is the purpose of the plaintiff's action. Therefore, it is a better way to recognize and solve the problem by reclassifying the plaintiff's purpose. For most change applications, consent should be granted, as the action should have some tolerance for changes in the plaintiff's purpose. A change application for the underlying purpose of the plaintiff's action shall not be agreed to. The fundamental reason for deciding whether to agree to the application for change lies in the value choice of procedural law rather than the consideration of litigation economy or balancing the interests of both parties. The statement of case and the purpose of the plaintiff's action are the relationship between the means and the end. The fundamental change of the case statement and the fundamental purpose substitution of the plaintiff action are the relations between the external representation and the internal basis. Since an application for change is not always allowed, the conventional view that "the judge can generally allow the application for change" or "the judge can agree to the application later before understanding the specific content of the application" cannot hold.
【作者單位】： 南京師范大學(xué);
【基金】：博士后國際交流計(jì)劃資助
【分類號】：D925.1
，

本文編號：2387913