本文選題：虛假訴訟 + 一般侵權(quán)　； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：虛假訴訟行為在我國(guó)呈高發(fā)態(tài)勢(shì),危害深重。2013年修訂后的《民事訴訟法》對(duì)虛假訴訟做了規(guī)定,2015年通過的《刑法修正案(九)》將虛假訴訟入罪。但現(xiàn)行法律規(guī)制具有缺陷,民事程序法和刑事實(shí)體法上的責(zé)任承擔(dān)都不具有彌補(bǔ)受害人損失的功能,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》卻沒有對(duì)其做明確規(guī)定,虛假訴訟侵權(quán)在法律適用上缺乏具體依據(jù)。實(shí)踐中已出現(xiàn)虛假訴訟侵權(quán)的裁判案例,各地在打擊虛假訴訟上的有益探索使越來越多的虛假訴訟侵權(quán)得以查實(shí),有關(guān)虛假訴訟侵權(quán)的立法嘗試及理論探討也日趨深入。因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)將虛假訴訟納入侵權(quán)行為。虛假訴訟既包括行為人通謀,虛構(gòu)本不存在的事實(shí)提起訴訟,損害他人合法權(quán)益的雙方串通型情形,也包括當(dāng)事人一方以虛構(gòu)事實(shí)、證據(jù)等方式,提起訴訟侵害對(duì)方當(dāng)事人權(quán)益的單方欺詐型行為。就其存在領(lǐng)域看,包含民事、行政和刑事訴訟,行為目的有侵財(cái)和非侵財(cái)型之分,捏造內(nèi)容可為全部案件事實(shí)或部分事實(shí),其行為方式不限于虛構(gòu)事實(shí),也包括隱瞞真相。虛假訴訟是惡意訴訟和濫用訴權(quán)的下位概念。具有訴訟領(lǐng)域廣泛、侵犯對(duì)象多樣及行為手段隱蔽等特征。虛假訴訟侵權(quán)責(zé)任適用過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則,行為主體和責(zé)任主體不存在分離情形,是典型的一般侵權(quán)。虛假訴訟侵權(quán)責(zé)任的重心不在于保護(hù)訴權(quán),而是要圍繞實(shí)體權(quán)益,明確責(zé)任構(gòu)成。行為人應(yīng)實(shí)施了串通性或者虛假性的行為,并延伸至訴訟,其捏造的事實(shí)要符合起訴條件并令法院信服。虛假訴訟侵權(quán)在主觀上為故意,主要表現(xiàn)為直接故意,在某些情況下,也可為間接故意,但重大過失不構(gòu)成。虛假訴訟的結(jié)果是使他人權(quán)益受到侵害,主要是利益之侵害,包含債權(quán)利益、股東利益、票據(jù)利益、占有及純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失等,財(cái)產(chǎn)損害和非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害都應(yīng)涵蓋在內(nèi)。虛假訴訟侵權(quán)責(zé)任產(chǎn)生的訴訟領(lǐng)域?yàn)榘瑘?zhí)行、調(diào)解等程序的民事、行政、刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域,但是排除仲裁和行政處罰等準(zhǔn)司法行政領(lǐng)域。其責(zé)任承擔(dān)主體既包括訴訟當(dāng)事人,也包括證人、鑒定人、翻譯人員等其他訴訟參與人,還包括律師,但是不應(yīng)包括司法人員。其責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式主要但不限于賠償損失,就賠償損失的范圍而言,受害方因涉入訴訟所產(chǎn)生的一切必要費(fèi)用、虛假訴訟本身所帶來的財(cái)產(chǎn)損失、為推翻虛假訴訟結(jié)果而采取各種救濟(jì)程序所支付的費(fèi)用都應(yīng)得到賠償。律師費(fèi)應(yīng)包含在賠償范圍之內(nèi),但對(duì)精神損害賠償要嚴(yán)格限制,而懲罰性賠償則不宜適用。
[Abstract]:The false litigation behavior in our country is high, the harm is very serious. The revised Civil procedure Law in 2013 provides for the false lawsuit, and the Criminal Law Amendment (9) passed in 2015 criminalizes the false lawsuit. However, the current legal regulation has its defects. Neither the civil procedure law nor the criminal substantive law has the function of making up for the loss of the victim, but the Tort liability Law does not clearly provide for it. The legal application of false litigation tort is lack of concrete basis. In practice, there have been adjudication cases of false litigation infringement, and the beneficial exploration in cracking down on false litigation has made more and more false litigation infringement verified, and the legislative attempt and theoretical discussion on false litigation tort have been deepened day by day. Therefore, the false litigation should be included in the infringement. The false litigation includes not only the collusion of the two parties who colluded with the perpetrator, but also the collusion of the two parties in bringing a lawsuit against the facts which do not exist in the fictitious nature, and also in the form of fictitious facts and evidence by one of the parties. A unilateral fraudulent act that infringes the rights and interests of the other party. In terms of its field of existence, it includes civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. The purpose of the act is divided into two types: invading money and not invading money. The fabricated content can be all the facts of the case or part of the facts, and its behavior is not limited to fictitious facts, but also includes concealment of the truth. False litigation is a concept of malice litigation and abuse of right of action. It has a wide range of litigation fields, various objects of aggression and covert means of action and so on. The principle of fault liability is applicable to the liability for tort in false litigation, and there is no separation between the subject of conduct and the subject of responsibility. It is a typical general tort. The focus of tort liability in false litigation is not to protect the right of action, but to define the constitution of liability around substantive rights and interests. The perpetrator should carry out collusion or falsehood, and extend to the lawsuit. The fabricated facts should conform to the conditions of prosecution and convince the court. The infringement of false litigation is intentional subjectively, mainly manifested as direct intent, and in some cases it can also be indirect intent, but gross negligence does not constitute. The result of false litigation is that the rights and interests of others are infringed, including creditor's rights interests, shareholders' interests, bill interests, possession and pure economic losses, property damage and non-property damage should be covered. The litigation field of tort liability in false litigation is civil, administrative and criminal litigation including execution, mediation and other procedures, but excludes quasi-judicial administrative fields such as arbitration and administrative punishment. Its main body of responsibility includes not only litigant, but also witnesses, experts, translators and other participants in litigation, but also lawyers, but should not include judicial personnel. Its liability is mainly but not limited to compensation for the loss. In terms of the scope of compensation for the loss, all necessary costs incurred by the aggrieved party as a result of its involvement in the proceedings, and property losses caused by the false litigation itself, The expenses incurred in various relief proceedings to overturn the false outcome of the action should be compensated. Legal fees should be included in the scope of compensation, but moral damages should be strictly limited, and punitive damages should not be applied.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D925

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李榮梅;;虛假訴訟刑法規(guī)制思辨[J];學(xué)理論;2009年25期

2 李翡;;虛假訴訟行為探析與整治[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年01期

3 尉蘭琴;;試論虛假訴訟[J];隴東學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

4 趙赤;李燕山;;論虛假訴訟的刑法規(guī)制[J];江漢論壇;2010年02期

5 胡蓓;;論虛假訴訟的刑事可罰性及司法應(yīng)對(duì)[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年14期

6 薛瑋;;當(dāng)前民間借貸虛假訴訟案件的認(rèn)定與防范[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年15期

7 畢慧;;論民事虛假訴訟的法律規(guī)制[J];浙江學(xué)刊;2010年03期

8 范水清;;淺談如何防范打擊虛假訴訟[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年11期

9 梁婷;;民事虛假訴訟現(xiàn)狀及其規(guī)制[J];黔南民族師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期

10 郭亞瓊;;淺議虛假訴訟的法律規(guī)制[J];知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì);2011年13期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 董小軍　本報(bào)通訊員 陳海濱 舒沁;警惕虛假訴訟的欺詐[N];寧波日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

2 本報(bào)記者 袁定波;修正刑法解決對(duì)虛假訴訟制裁問題[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

3 江蘇省常州市天寧區(qū)人民法院 李霞;虛假訴訟現(xiàn)象亟待引起重視[N];人民法院報(bào);2008年

4 本報(bào)記者 余建華　孟煥良;浙江 刑罰之劍指向虛假訴訟[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

5 本報(bào)記者 蔣萍　通訊員 吳祿嬋;虛假訴訟可能涉及十宗罪[N];文匯報(bào);2010年

6 媒體評(píng)論員 劉英團(tuán);以刑事制裁應(yīng)對(duì)“虛假訴訟”[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

7 本報(bào)記者 白龍　張爍;多管齊下嚴(yán)打虛假訴訟[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

8 黃廷旺　紀(jì)明龍;虛假訴訟的成因與防范[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2010年

9 本報(bào)記者 魯晟;虛假訴訟:民事到刑事的嬗變[N];民主與法制時(shí)報(bào);2010年

10 記者 劉慧靜 通訊員 蒲華峰;虛假訴訟 緣何愈演愈烈[N];舟山日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 張昕;虛假訴訟問題研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2010年

2 譚慧;虛假訴訟成因與對(duì)策研究[D];貴州大學(xué);2009年

3 許勤;從司法角度看虛假訴訟的刑法規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

4 項(xiàng)衛(wèi)兵;虛假訴訟行為的刑法規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

5 郝元元;民事虛假訴訟研究[D];河南大學(xué);2012年

6 王s，

本文編號(hào)：1938268