冒名诉讼问题研究

发布时间：2018-01-30 16:54

本文关键词： 姓名冒用姓名诉讼当事人确定判决效力行为规制　出处：《兰州学刊》2016年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：冒名诉讼体现为姓名主体与诉讼行为主体相分离,诉讼行为主体冒用他人的姓名符号参与诉讼活动,实际上获得诉讼当事人的地位和权利,姓名主体完全没有获得参与诉讼的机会。这就造成形式上当事人与实际当事人的两分局面。由此产生了当事人确定、冒名诉讼判决效力认定等问题。冒名诉讼细分为合谋型冒名诉讼和非合谋型冒名诉讼。合谋型冒名诉讼采取"表示说"将姓名主体认定为当事人,非合谋型冒名诉讼采取"规范分类说"确定当事人。虽然冒名诉讼行为存在瑕疵,但应该肯定冒名诉讼判决的效力。并根据不同类型冒名诉讼行为的特点,采取不同的瑕疵治愈措施。当前,我国对冒名诉讼的防范和规制措施尚不完善,应该完善社会识别体系,加强审查,遏止冒名诉讼行为。
[Abstract]:False litigation reflects the separation of the subject of the name and the subject of the action. The subject of the action takes part in the litigation by using the names and symbols of others, and in fact obtains the status and right of the litigant. The subject of the name has not got the opportunity to participate in the lawsuit at all. This has resulted in a two-point situation between the parties concerned in form and the actual parties, which has resulted in the determination of the parties concerned. The false action is divided into collusion false action and non-collusion false action. The collusive pseudonym action adopts "express theory" to identify the name subject as the party. Non-collusive falsehood litigation adopts the "normative classification theory" to determine the parties. Although the impersonation action has defects, it should confirm the validity of the falsehood litigation judgment and according to the characteristics of different types of false litigation acts. At present, the prevention and regulation measures of impersonation litigation in our country are not perfect, so we should perfect the social identification system, strengthen the examination, and stop the action of impersonation.
【作者单位】：中国人民大学法学院;
【分类号】：D915
【正文快照】： 近年来,冒名诉讼案件频发,各地法院的官方网站1以及《人民法院报》2相继刊登了部分案例,并对冒名诉讼案件的审理进行了初步探索,但尚未形成统一而有效的处理机制。司法实践的需求在理论研究中鲜有回应。文章以冒名诉讼整体为研究对象,从冒名诉讼问题的缘起点入手,探讨冒名诉讼

【相似文献】