民事二审撤回起诉制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-11 23:23

本文选题：撤回起诉 + 禁止再诉　；参考：《湘潭大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：撤诉是原告向法院做出的旨在撤回已成立之诉,要求法院对案件停止审理的诉讼行为。二审撤回起诉作为撤诉制度的重要组成部分,是原审原告行使处分权的重要方式。然剖析我国民事诉讼撤诉制度的立法现状,不难发现,关于撤诉制度的规定一直未有太大变化,对二审撤回起诉问题的规定更是十分模糊。在司法实践中,法官的处理方式也是五花八门,导致了实务中的乱象。鉴于此,2015年2月4日出台实施的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第338条明确规定在二审程序中原审原告可以撤回起诉,赋予了原审原告在二审中撤回起诉的权利,不仅在立法上弥补了民事诉讼法的漏洞,对解决司法实务中二审撤回起诉处理不统一的问题也具有重大意义。当然,在肯定立法进步的同时也应注意到该制度背后所产生的新的问题,如二审法院同时准许原审原告撤回起诉和撤回上诉的申请时,一审判决失效与生效的矛盾;其他当事人许可同意方式不明可能导致诉讼拖延、处理不统一;“可以准许”的规定违背二审撤回起诉制度设立的初衷;对当事人撤诉后再诉彻底禁止不合理等问题,仍需进一步完善。本文笔者首先从民事二审撤回起诉制度的内涵入手,归纳了学术界对于民事二审撤回起诉制度的不同定义,并对这些概念进行对比分析,得出本文中二审撤回起诉的内涵。在界定概念的基础上,对二审撤回起诉制度的立法目的、要件及法律效果进行了分析,进而将其与一审撤诉、撤回上诉进行了比较,以深化对该制度的理解与认识。其次,从立法和司法两方面对我国二审撤回起诉制度进行了深入挖掘,指出了该制度在现阶段存在的诸多不足,如一刀切式地禁止再诉缺乏合理性、其他当事人许可同意的方式不明确、诉讼费用的负担主体混乱、缺乏程序性制裁措施等。最后,在借鉴域外国家撤诉制度中相关经验(撤诉期限、法律效果、被告同意的方式等)的基础上结合我国的司法实践情况,提出了完善我国二审撤回起诉制度,应在坚持处分权、当事人诉讼权利平等和诉讼效益原则的前提下,明确法院处理方式、细化其他当事人许可同意的规定、确立违反二审撤回起诉制度的程序性制裁措施、规定原告为诉讼费用的负担主体、对二审撤回起诉后再诉进行例外规定等完善建议。
[Abstract]:Withdrawal is the action that the plaintiff makes to the court to withdraw the established action and request the court to stop hearing the case. As an important part of the withdrawal system, the second instance withdrawal of prosecution is an important way for the plaintiff to exercise the right of disposition. However, it is not difficult to find that there has been no great change in the provisions of the withdrawal system of civil action in our country, and the provisions on the withdrawal of prosecution in the second instance are even more vague. In judicial practice, the judge's handling is also varied, resulting in chaos in practice. In view of this, Article 338 of the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of the Civil procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, promulgated on February 4, 2015, explicitly stipulates that the plaintiff of the original trial may withdraw his suit during the second instance procedure. It gives the plaintiff the right to withdraw the lawsuit in the second instance, which not only makes up the loophole of the civil procedure law in legislation, but also has great significance to solve the problem of the disunity of the second instance withdrawing the prosecution in the judicial practice. Of course, while affirming the legislative progress, we should also pay attention to the new problems behind the system, such as the contradiction between invalidation and validity of the first-instance judgment when the court of second instance simultaneously allows the plaintiff to withdraw the suit and withdraw the application of appeal; The lack of permission and consent of other parties may lead to delay in litigation and inconsistent handling; the provisions of "may permit" run counter to the original intention of the second instance to withdraw the prosecution system; and it is unreasonable to prohibit the parties' withdrawal of the suit after the appeal has been withdrawn completely, and so on. It still needs further improvement. The author begins with the connotation of the civil second instance withdrawing prosecution system, summarizes the different definitions of the civil second instance withdrawal prosecution system in the academic circles, and makes a comparative analysis of these concepts, and draws the connotation of the second instance withdrawal prosecution in this paper. On the basis of defining the concept, this paper analyzes the legislative purpose, the elements and the legal effect of the second instance withdrawal of prosecution system, and then compares it with the first instance withdrawal of suit and the withdrawal of appeal in order to deepen the understanding and understanding of the system. Secondly, from the aspects of legislation and judicature, the author deeply excavates the system of withdrawing the prosecution of second instance in our country, and points out many shortcomings of this system at the present stage, such as the lack of rationality of prohibiting resuit in a one-size-fits-all manner. Other parties' consent is unclear, the burden of litigation costs is confused, and procedural sanctions are lacking. Finally, on the basis of drawing lessons from the relevant experiences in the system of withdrawal of foreign countries (deadline of withdrawal, legal effect, manner of consent of the defendant, etc.), this paper proposes to perfect the system of withdrawing the prosecution of second instance in our country, based on the judicial practice of our country. On the premise of adhering to the principles of disposition right, equal litigant rights and benefit of litigation, we should clarify the way of court handling, refine the provisions of permission and consent of other parties, and establish procedural sanction measures that violate the system of withdrawing litigation in second instance. It is suggested that the plaintiff should be the main burden of litigation costs, and the exception should be made to the second instance after withdrawing the lawsuit.
【学位授予单位】：湘潭大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.1

【参考文献】