争议焦点效力的制度性建构

发布时间：2018-05-29 10:52

  本文选题：争议焦点 + 争点效　； 参考：《南京大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：诉讼标的为当事人攻击防御目标,并为法院审理裁判对象,故传统民事诉讼理论将既判力范围限定为裁判主文判断,裁判理由部分不被赋予裁判效力。成为当事人争议焦点的事实的判断,倘若对后诉有一定的约束力,本文简称为"争议焦点效力"。承认这一点对于预防矛盾裁判、促进诉讼经济、弥补传统既判力理论不足有重要的理论与实践价值。英美及大陆法系分别以"争点排除效"和"事实证明效"处理争议焦点判断效力。我国最高法院以司法解释方式确立"预决效力规则"解决该裁判理由效力。但该规则理论基础不明,适用范围不限于对争议焦点的判断,模糊事实证明规则与裁判效力规则,其正当性存在很大争议,无助于我国裁判效力制度发展。本文认为有必要通过比较法的功能比较方式,提炼出背后制约争议焦点效力因素(本文称为争议焦点程序保障群)。通过对照我国围绕争议焦点程序保障,重新阐释我国争议焦点判断效力规则。第一部分通过梳理我国既有文本规范和既有研究,指出既有成果在研究方法之不足,以提炼出本文的核心问题并阐述本文论证思路。我国当前围绕争议焦点和预决条款之间关系研究存在缺乏实践样本分析、理论体系整合等缺憾。本文拟以代表性裁判文书为分析样本,检讨预决效力条款实施现状,通过制度生成史批判现行预决效力条款"不合时宜性",试图解析争议焦点判断效力背后制约因素,以重新阐释我国争议焦点判断效力规则。第二部分检讨我国争议焦点效力实践现状及所引发弊端。本文将检索到的232份裁判文书分组归类,并以23份代表性裁判文书作为分析样本。实践中多援引预决效力条款作为争议焦点效力适用依据,但在效力本质、规制范围等层面理解存有差异。该种操作方式将造成证明制度和裁判效力制度混淆、预决效力相对性过度泛化、诉讼突袭、加重对方当事人举证责任等种种流弊。第三部分是分析我国预决效力条款在现行立法框架中"不合时宜性"问题。预决效力条款法理基础存在拟制真实说及客观真实说争议,并且两种学说旗鼓相当。该现状不仅直接反映在对裁判效力理解层面,也间接地反映在最高人民法院官方前后不一态度上。预决效力条款移植于前苏联,随着我国社会经济制度的转型,国家集权形式已经无法适应现代社会管理模式,必然向回应性国家和纠纷解决型司法程序转型。因此,前苏联建构预决效力条款时所特有的审判职能、社会意识形态、程序目标等语境,在我国当前的司法环境中俨然已经被置换。第四部分是介绍不同争议焦点效力选择进路,探寻其背后共同法理基础并分析背后制约因素。英美法系采取"争点排除效",大陆法系的既判力遮断效具备同样功能,而晚近日本以及我国台湾地区理论则逐渐转向承认其有裁判效力。本文提出应当将该程序保障群解析为争议焦点整理程度、法官释明程度、争议焦点判断复审程度及特别救济程度等。第五部分是将上述制约因素同我国现行制度进行对照。经对照,我国争议焦点整理程序无规则、法官释明权制度未规范、争议焦点判断普通救济渠道被架空、争议焦点判断特别救济渠道不通畅。我国除了改革目标中的争议焦点复审程度可同美国、德国相比拟以外,其余要素均无法同其相提并论;而以上程序保障因素的缺陷即不足以支撑争点效制度引进。第六部分则是本文试图利用现行制度,通过解释论重构我国争议焦点效力规则。认为我国裁判文书在判决理由部分争议焦点判断应当适用公文书证明规则,但仅具备形式证明力,而不具备实质证明力。形式证明力为公文书经推定直接产生;实质证明力则需法官自由心证判断。然而,当特定诉讼政策价值需求足以超越争议焦点程序保障时,应当在极端例外情形中承认争议焦点判断在后诉中拘束力,即被赋予遮断效力。
[Abstract]:For the parties to attack the defense target and judge the referee for the court, the traditional civil procedure theory defines the scope of the res judicata as the judgment of the referee, and the part of the referee is not given the effect of the referee. It has important theoretical and practical values to prevent contradictory referees, promote litigation economy and make up for the deficiency of traditional res judicata theory. The Anglo American and continental law system, respectively, deal with the effectiveness of dispute focus by "disputing point elimination effect" and "fact proof effect". The Supreme Court of our country establishes the prejudicial rule by judicial interpretation. "To solve the justification of the referee, but the theoretical basis of the rule is unknown, the scope of application is not limited to the judgment of the focus of the dispute. The justification of the rules of fuzzy fact proof and the validity of the referee is very controversial, and it is not conducive to the development of the system of referee effectiveness in our country. This article holds that it is necessary to refine the back system through the comparative method of comparative law. The effect factor of the dispute focus (this article is called the procedural guarantee group of the focus of dispute). By comparing China's focus on the procedural protection of the dispute focus, it reinterprets the rule of judging the effectiveness of the dispute focus in our country. The first part, through combing the existing text standard and the existing research in our country, points out the shortcomings of the research methods of the existing fruits in order to extract the core of this article. At present, there is a lack of practical sample analysis and theoretical system integration in the study of the relationship between the focus of the dispute and the predetermined clause in our country. The present situation of the implementation of the predetermined validity clause is reviewed with the representative referee documents as the analysis sample, and the current predetermined validity clause is criticized by the history of the system generation. In the second part, the second part reviews the current situation of the effectiveness of the dispute focus in China and the disadvantages. This paper classifies the 232 referee documents and uses 23 representative referee documents as the analysis samples. In practice, the provision of predetermined effectiveness is used as the basis for the application of the dispute focus, but there are differences in the understanding of the essence of the effectiveness and the scope of the regulation. This operation will cause confusion in the system of proof and the effectiveness of the referee, the overgeneralization of the relative predetermination effect, the raids of the litigation, and the aggravation of the other parties' burden of proof, and so on. The three part is the analysis of the "inopportune" issue in the current legislative framework of the predetermination effectiveness clause in China. The legal basis of the pre determination validity clause exists in the legal theory and the objective truth, and the two doctrines are quite equal. The present situation is not only directly reflected in the understanding of the effectiveness of the referee, but also indirectly reflected in the Supreme People's court officer. There is no attitude towards the former Soviet Union. With the transition of the former Soviet Union, with the transformation of the social and economic system in China, the form of national centralization has been unable to adapt to the modern social management model. It is bound to transform to the responsive state and dispute resolution judicial procedure. Therefore, the former Soviet Union constructs the prejudicial provisions of the trial function and society. The context of ideology and procedural goals has been replaced in the current judicial environment of our country. The fourth part is to introduce the choice approach of the effectiveness of different disputes, explore the common legal basis behind it and analyze the factors behind it. The Anglo American law system adopts the "dispute resolution effect", and the jurisdiction of the civil law system has the same function, In recent years, the theory of Taiwan area in Japan and China gradually turned to adjudication effectiveness. This paper proposed that the procedure guarantee group should be analyzed as the degree of disputed focus, the degree of judge's interpretation, the degree of review and the degree of special relief, and so on. The fifth part is to carry out the above-mentioned restrictive factors with the current system of our country. According to the contrast, the process of disputed focus in China is irregular, the judge's interpretation right system is not standardized, the focus of the dispute is judged to be the common remedy channel, and the focus of the dispute is unobstructed. The retrial degree of the focus of the dispute in our country can not be compared with that of the United States and Germany. In the sixth part, this article attempts to reconstruct our country's dispute focus effect rules by using the current system and reconstructs the rules of the dispute focus in our country by using the present system. Proof force does not have substantial proof. Formal proof is the direct production of official documents; substantive proof is required by the judge's free evidence. However, when the demand for specific litigation policy is sufficient to exceed the procedural guarantee of the dispute focus, it should be recognized in the extreme exceptions that the focus of the dispute should be determined in the post prosecution. Give off the effect.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1
，

本文编号：1950612