论民事一审漏判的更正

发布时间：2018-04-14 17:06

本文选题：民事判决 + 遗漏诉讼请求　；参考：《法学》2017年07期

【摘要】：民事判决始终存在出错的可能,其中遗漏诉讼请求被认为属于非常严重的错误,主要包括脱漏应当审判的部分诉讼标的或者费用,这在实践中也不少见。虽然现行法在复审程序中将这种错误视为严重程序违法,但是在司法实务中更为常见的是在上诉程序中直接纠错。为了同时弥补上述现行法和实践中两种模式的不足,我国应引入比较法上的补充判决制度。具体而言,补充判决中漏判的识别以案件中诉讼标的的识别为标准,在救济程序上则应当综合考虑借鉴德国与日本的相关立法模式。我国的补充判决制度不必以当事人申请为前提,而且应限制启动补充判决程序的时限,使遗漏部分的诉讼系属状态消灭。此外,当事人也可通过变更上诉请求或另诉得到救济。作为例外,针对诉讼费用漏判的补充判决不受期限限制,但也可在上诉程序中直接予以更正。
[Abstract]:There is always the possibility of error in civil judgment, in which the omission of litigation request is considered to be a very serious mistake, mainly including the omission of part of the object of the lawsuit or the cost that should be tried, which is not uncommon in practice.Although the current law regards this error as a serious procedural offence in the review procedure, it is more common in judicial practice to correct the error directly in the appeal procedure.In order to make up for the deficiency of the two models, we should introduce the supplementary judgment system in comparative law.Specifically, the identification of the missing judgment in the supplementary judgment is based on the identification of the object of the lawsuit in the case, and the relevant legislative model of Germany and Japan should be considered synthetically in the relief procedure.The supplementary judgment system of our country does not have to take the application of the parties as the premise, and should limit the time limit to start the supplementary judgment procedure, so that the missing part of the lawsuit is the state of extinction.In addition, the parties can also change the appeal or a separate appeal for relief.As an exception, supplementary judgements for missing costs are not subject to time limits, but can also be corrected directly in appeal proceedings.
【作者单位】：北京大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金重大项目“审判中心视角下的刑事、民事和行政诉讼制度改革研究”(14ZDC014)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】