论判决之更正

发布时间：2019-01-29 01:19

【摘要】：司法是维护社会公平与正义的最后一道防线，法院通过行使审判权来解决纠纷、平息矛盾、恢复秩序。然而，审判权运行的结果并非完美无缺，法院作出的裁判文书会出现形形色色的错误；因此，，各国立法设立了多种途径来救济“错误”的裁判，判决更正便是其中的一种。从某种意义上讲，判决更正是民事诉讼体系不可或缺的组成部分，但我国有关判决更正的规定却过于粗疏，司法实践中对判决更正的适用也是混乱不堪。鉴于此，本文通过分析、比较域外有关判决更正的成熟理论，归纳出我国判决更正制度存在的不足之处，并在此基础上提出自己的改良建议。全文共分为四个部分，主要内容如下：第一部分揭示了判决更正的内涵及其法理基础。该部分首先阐明了判决更正的内涵，并提出应当用“显然错误”来代替“笔误”。接着探讨了判决更正的三个法理基础：程序相当性、程序效率性与司法权威性。第二部分阐释了启动判决更正必须具备的两个要件。法院要对已经作出的裁判文书进行更正必须符合判决更正的要件。一方面，裁判文书须存在误写、误算以及其他类似的显然错误，这是判决更正的积极要件；另一方面，判决更正的结果不能改变原裁判的实质内容，这是判决更正的消极要件。此外，该部分还特别探讨了“显然错误是否仅限于法院的过失”“判决主文能否更正”等四种存在争议的显然错误形态，并提出了自己的观点。第三部分论述了判决更正的相关程序架构。该部分包括：判决更正之启动、判决更正之主体、判决更正之审理、判决更正之裁判以及判决更正之效力五个方面。判决更正之启动涉及哪些主体有权启动判决更正程序、有启动权的主体应当以何种方式启动更正程序以及启动判决更正是否应存在时间限制等内容。判决更正之主体主要涉及更正权是否专属于作出原裁判的法官或法院。判决更正之审理及裁判主要探讨法院在审理更正申请时能否进行言辞辩论或证据调查，以及当事人能否对裁判结果提出上诉等问题。判决更正之效力主要论述更正裁定与原裁判之间的关系，并得出更正裁定是原裁判的组成部分，其效力溯及于原裁判确定之时的结论。第四部分论述了我国判决更正制度的不足及其完善。与域外有关判决更正的成熟理论相比，我国的立法过于粗疏，具体表现有四：判决更正的启动主体不明确、当事人对更正裁定缺乏救济途径、将诉讼费用的遗漏纳入判决更正程序、判决更正的适用范围不明。针对上述四点不足，本文对症下药，提出了相应的改良建议：第一，当事人与法院皆有权启动判决更正程序；第二，赋予当事人对更正或驳回更正申请之裁定以抗告权或上诉权；第三，将诉讼费用的遗漏从判决更正程序中剔除；第四，明确规定判决更正适用于民事裁定书、民事调解书中的显然错误。
[Abstract]:Justice is the last line of defense to safeguard social fairness and justice. Courts resolve disputes, quell contradictions and restore order by exercising judicial power. However, the result of the operation of judicial power is not perfect, the judgment documents made by the court will make various kinds of mistakes; therefore, various countries have set up various ways to remedy the "wrong" judgment, and the judgment correction is one of them. In a sense, judgment correction is an indispensable part of the civil litigation system, but the provisions on judgment correction in our country are too careless, and the application of judgment correction in judicial practice is also chaotic. In view of this, this article through the analysis, compares the overseas judgment correction mature theory, summarizes our country judgment correction system existence insufficiency, and puts forward own improvement suggestion on this basis. The paper is divided into four parts. The main contents are as follows: the first part reveals the connotation and legal basis of judgment correction. This part first clarifies the connotation of judgment correction and puts forward that "obvious error" should be used instead of "slip". Then it discusses the three legal basis of judgment correction: procedural equivalence, procedural efficiency and judicial authority. The second part explains two elements that must be possessed in the correction of starting judgment. The court must comply with the elements of the judgment correction if it is to correct the judgment instrument that has been made. On the one hand, there must be miswriting, miscalculation and other obvious errors, which are the positive elements of judgment correction; on the other hand, the result of judgment correction cannot change the substance of the original judgment, which is the negative element of judgment correction. In addition, this part also discusses four kinds of controversial forms of obvious errors, such as "whether the obvious error is limited to the fault of the court" and "whether or not the judgment main text can be corrected", and puts forward its own point of view. The third part discusses the relevant procedural framework of judgment correction. This part includes five aspects: the initiation of judgment correction, the subject of judgment correction, the trial of judgment correction, the judgment of judgment correction and the validity of judgment correction. The initiation of judgment correction involves which subjects have the right to start the judgment correction procedure, how the subject with the right to start should start the correction procedure, and whether there should be a time limit for the commencement of the judgment correction. The main body of judgment correction mainly involves whether the power of correction belongs to the judge or court that made the original decision. The trial and judgment of judgment correction mainly discuss whether the court can conduct verbal debate or evidence investigation when hearing the application for correction and whether the parties concerned can appeal the result of the judgment and so on. The validity of the judgment correction mainly discusses the relationship between the correction ruling and the original referee, and draws the conclusion that the correction ruling is a part of the original referee and its effect is traced back to the time when the original judgment was confirmed. The fourth part discusses the deficiency and perfection of judgment correction system in China. Compared with the mature theories about judgment correction outside China, the legislation of our country is too careless and there are four specific manifestations: the starting subject of judgment correction is not clear, and the parties lack the remedy way to correct ruling. The omission of litigation costs shall be included in the judgment correction procedure, and the scope of application of the judgment correction is unclear. In view of the above four deficiencies, this paper puts forward the corresponding improvement suggestions for the case: first, both the parties and the court have the right to initiate the judgment correction process; Second, to grant the litigant the right to protest or appeal against the decision to correct or reject the application for correction; third, to remove the omission of litigation costs from the judgment correction procedure; Fourthly, it is clearly stipulated that judgment correction is applicable to the civil order and the obvious errors in the civil mediation document.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D926

【相似文献】