无独立请求权第三人重构理论之考察与修正

发布时间：2018-06-28 11:46

本文选题：无独立请求权第三人 + 准独立当事人说　；参考：《南京大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：《民事诉讼法》第五十六条的规定导致我国无独立请求权第三人制度存在无法解决的内在矛盾,需要对我国无独立请求权第三人制度进行重构。目前学术界已经出现了几种成熟的重构理论,重构理论是一种理论化水平较高的改革建议,它的出现标志着我国对无独立请求权第三人问题的研究进入成熟阶段。然而,目前还缺少对重构理论作细致的梳理和考察,未检验重构理论声称要解决的问题是否真正需要解决,未检验其是否完美解决了其所应对的问题,不同的重构方案之间存在什么差异,所提出的重构理论引发了其他问题,是否有可能发现一种包含和超越了所有重构理论的理论。本文主要是对重构理论进行“破”,是一个对理论进行检验的过程,其中既包括澄清重构理论对问题的误读,对某些重构理论值得商榷之处的指出,也包括对某些理论中可能导致的附带损害的提醒,还包括对重构理论模仿对象的考察以及对更有包容性的新理论的推荐。除了结论,本文分为六个部分。第一部分：问题的提出。指出国内学者对我国无独立请求权第三人制度的研究已经比较深入,形成了几种对无独立请求权第三人制度进行重新建构的理论,重构理论出现后,学界对无独立请求权第三人问题的研究明显放慢了脚步,现阶段有必要对重构理论进行考察。分类介绍了我国学者所提出的各种重构理论,指出本文的任务是对重构理论进行考察、批判或修正。第二部分：《适用意见》第六十六条并非违法的司法解释,而是对《民事诉讼法》第五十六条的正确解读。单单从保障无独立请求权第三人诉讼权利的角度,不存在对现行制度进行重构的必要。重构理论的主要贡献在于明确了无独立请求权第三人的诉讼地位而不在于使无独立请求权第三人获得程序保障。第三部分：对准独立当事人说的源头、重构思路、重构主张进行了考察,指出准独立当事人说从案例和类型上都存在值得商榷的地方,主张对准独立当事人说的适用范围进行修正。第四部分：对引入第三方被告说的重构主张和其参照的域外法(美国的引入第三方被告制度)进行了考察：对被告型第三人说的重构主张进行了考察,指出它继承了引入第三方被告说的核心观点,对之进行了补充；对义务参加型第三人说的重构主张进行了考察,指出它也继承了引入第三方被告说的核心观点,它对引入第三方被告说和被告型第三人说的观点进行了批判和修正；不同意义务参加型第三人说通过比较研究得出的两个结论；对职权主义在无独立请求权第三人制度中的残留进行了说明,指出义务参加型第三人说与现行制度存在本质差异,义务参加型第三人说也否定了追究第三人责任的做法。第五部分：考察了辅助参加说的重构主张和重构理由,介绍了大陆法系辅助参加制度中的重要内容,阐述了两大法系不同的诉讼构造,并对两大法系类似制度的诉讼效率进行了比较。第六部分：主流重构理论意识到第三人参加诉讼本质上是一种诉的合并,应该通过修法准许由被告引入的第三人之诉与本诉的诉讼合并；诉的主体合并理论比主流重构理论更进一步,主张强制追加与案件诉讼结果存在义务性法律关系的那种最典型的那种第三人参加诉讼；诉的主体的强制合并理论具有重大的理论价值。
[Abstract]:The fifty-sixth provisions of the civil procedure law lead to the incapable inherent contradictions in the third party system without independent claim in China. It is necessary to reconstruct the system of third persons without independent claim in our country. Its appearance marks the mature stage of China's research on the third person problem of independent claim. However, there is still a lack of careful review and investigation of the theory of reconstruction. What's the difference between the cases and the refactoring theory raised by the refactoring theory? Is it possible to find a theory that includes and transcends all the refactoring theories. This paper is a process of "breaking" the theory of refactoring, which is a process of testing the theory, including clarifying the misreading of the refactoring theory to the problem, and to some weight. The structure theory is debatable, including a reminder of collateral damage that may lead to some theories, including the investigation of the object of reconstruction and the more inclusive new theory. In addition to the conclusion, this article is divided into six parts. The study of the third person system of the right of request has been deeply studied, and several theories on the reconstruction of the third person system without independent claim have been formed. After the emergence of the theory of reconstruction, the academic circles have slowed down the study of the question of the third person without independent claim. At this stage it is necessary to investigate the theory of reconstruction. The various reconstruction theories put forward, point out that the task of this article is to examine the theory of reconstruction, criticize or amend it. The second part: < applicable opinion > sixty-sixth unlawful judicial interpretations, but the correct interpretation of the fifty-sixth articles in the law of civil procedure. It is necessary to reconstruct the current system. The main contribution of the reconstruction theory is to clarify the litigation status of the third people without independent claim, but not to make the third persons without independent claim the procedural guarantee. The third part: the source, the reconfiguration idea, the restructure of the reconfiguration and the quasi independent parties. From the case and the type, there is a place to be discussed, which advocates the correction of the scope of application of the independent parties. The fourth part: the reconstructive claim of the introduction of the third party defendants and the extraterritorial law of its reference (the introduction of the third party defendant system in the United States): the reconfiguration of the third defendants of the accused has been carried out. It points out that it inherits the core ideas of the introduction of the third party defendants and complements it, and makes an investigation on the reconfiguration of the third people said by the compulsory participation type, and points out that it has also inherited the core view of the introduction of the third party defendants, and it criticized and amended the views of the third party accused and the third party. It disagrees with the two conclusions obtained by the third persons of the compulsory participation type through comparative study, and explains the residual of the third persons in the third person system without independent claim, pointing out that there are essential differences between the third persons of the compulsory participation type and the current system, and the compulsory participation of third people also denies the practice of investigating the responsibility of the third persons. The fifth part: it examines the reconstructive ideas and reasons for the auxiliary participation theory, introduces the important contents of the auxiliary participation system in the continental law system, expounds the different litigation structures of the two legal systems, and compares the litigation efficiency of the similar systems of the two legal systems. The sixth part: the mainstream reconstruction theory realizes that third people participate in the lawsuit book. Quality is a kind of merger of the lawsuit, which should be allowed to combine the lawsuit of third persons introduced by the defendant and the litigation of this lawsuit. The theory of the merger of the main body of the lawsuit is more important than the mainstream reconstruction theory, and advocates that the third party of the most canonical type which has compulsory legal relationship with the result of the case litigation is to take part in the lawsuit; the subject of the lawsuit is the subject of the lawsuit. The theory of compulsory merger is of great theoretical value.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】