论诚实信用原则下当事人真实义务

发布时间：2019-04-28 16:31

【摘要】：在民法上,早就承认了诚实信用原则的帝王条款的地位,但是其在民事诉讼法领域一直没有得到重视。随着社会经济生活的不断变化发展,各种新型的社会纠纷不断产生,传统的民事诉讼制度的作用发挥受到挑战。于是乎诚实信用原则被一些学者积极地主张引入到民事诉讼法领域。尽管有不同的声音,但普遍的观点还是赞同将诚实信用原则纳入到民事诉讼中的。关于诚实信用原则,我国民事诉讼法上也一直没有做出明确的规定,直到2012年修订民事诉讼法,在其中明确规定了诚实信用原则。但诚实信用原则的确立,并不能有效的解决我国司法实践中出现的滥用诉权、虚假诉讼等案件。民事诉讼领域对诚实信用原则的承认来源于对真实义务的规定,1895年《奥地利民事诉讼法》最早出现了真实义务的概念。真实义务作为诚实信用原则的主要表现形式,从其“诞生”之初就带有很大的争议。但真实义务可以弥补诚实信用原则的适用缺陷；可以细化诚实信用原则,更具有可操作性；可以更好地解决当事人之间的纠纷、遏制当事人的不良行为,缓解诉讼不诚信的现象,有其现实需要的意义。本文采用历史考察法、比较研究法等,总结、研究并分析了国内外真实义务的相关状况。结合我国的司法实践情况,提出要落实诚实信用原则的具体表现制度——当事人真实义务制度。本文主要分三部分来论述。第一部分主要介绍了诚实信用原则和真实义务的相关理论。主要从定义、性质、适用范围等方面入手论述了诚实信用和真实义务制度的发展历程和各自的功能。第二部分主要对真实义务进行域外的考察,重点论述德国和美国。通过对比分析得出对我国的启示。第三部分主要从我国关于当事人真实义务的立法、司法等情况予以阐述,并提出了落实当事人真实义务的具体措施和相关配套的保障制度。
[Abstract]:In civil law, it has long recognized the status of the imperial clause of the principle of good faith, but it has not been paid attention to in the field of civil procedure law. With the development of social and economic life, various new social disputes arise, and the role of traditional civil litigation system is challenged. As a result, the principle of good faith has been actively advocated by some scholars in the field of civil procedure law. Despite different voices, there is widespread support for the inclusion of the principle of good faith in civil proceedings. On the principle of good faith, China's civil procedure law has not made clear provisions, until 2012, the revision of the civil procedure law, in which the principle of good faith is clearly stipulated. However, the establishment of the principle of good faith can not effectively solve the cases of abuse of the right of action and false litigation in the judicial practice of our country. The recognition of the principle of good faith in the field of civil procedure stems from the stipulation of the obligation of truth. The concept of true obligation first appeared in the Austrian Civil procedure Law in 1895. As the main manifestation of the principle of good faith, the obligation of truth has been controversial at the beginning of its birth. But the true obligation can make up for the defect of the principle of good faith, it can refine the principle of good faith, and it is more maneuverable. It can solve the dispute between the parties better, restrain the bad behavior of the parties, and alleviate the phenomenon of dishonesty in litigation, which has its practical significance. This paper summarizes, studies and analyzes the status of real obligations at home and abroad by means of historical research and comparative research. Combining with the judicial practice of our country, this paper puts forward the concrete expression system of the principle of good faith-the real obligation system of the parties. This paper is divided into three parts to discuss. The first part mainly introduces the principle of good faith and the theory of true obligation. This paper mainly discusses the development process and respective functions of the system of good faith and true obligation from the aspects of definition, nature and scope of application. The second part mainly carries on the extraterritorial investigation to the true obligation, mainly discusses Germany and the United States. Through the comparative analysis, we can get the enlightenment to our country. The third part mainly expounds the legislation and judicature of the real obligation of the parties in our country, and puts forward the concrete measures to implement the real obligations of the parties and the related supporting safeguard system.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】