|
|
|
| Practical Misunderstandings in Concurrence of Claims and Regulatory Approaches |
| HU Si-bo1, ZHAO Zhi-chao2 |
1. Procedural Law Research Institute, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, 100088;
2. Law School of Renmin University of China, Beijing, 100872 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract We have many problems in handling the concurrence of claims. Neither the “alternative litigation” nor “alternative elimination” model is feasible in practice. They go against the requirements of the disposition doctrine, hinder effective settlement of disputes at one time, conflict with the victim-centered norm, and contradict Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law. From practical perspective, it is intended to present reasonable explanation to the relationship between competing claims. From the procedural perspective, it is intended to settle disputes at one time and to avoid double payment. On the issue of the relationship between claims, according to Article 186 of the civil code, it is only suitable to adopt the theory of free concurrence of claims or the theory of mutual influence of claims. Accordingly,it is only through the objective combination of litigation and partial adjustment of the concept of litigation object that we can work in line with the above two theories. To address the problems in practice, it is advisable to adopt either of the two approaches, one is “free competition of claim rights + objective combination of litigation”, and the other is “mutual influence of claim rights + partial adjustment of the concept of litigation object”. Both approaches are feasible and effective in resolving problems in concurrence of claims, avoiding negative consequences of “alternative litigation” and “alternative elimination” modes. Considering feasibility and regulation rationality, the former can be taken as a short-term goal and the latter can be taken as the direction of judicial practice in the future.
|
|
Received: 08 December 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 汤文平. 法典编纂视野下的请求权体系研究[J].兰州学刊,2016,(7):133.
[2] 郗伟明.论诉讼标的与请求权规范之竞合——以旧诉讼标的理论的两岸实践为视点[J].法商研究,2016,(3).
[3] 严仁群.实体法:请慎入程序法之域——以民事责任竞合为例[J].法律科学,2010,(3):32.
[4] (日)伊藤真.民事诉讼法[M].曹云吉译.北京:北京大学出版社,2019.147.
[5] 许可. 论当事人主义诉讼模式在我国法上的新进展[J].当代法学,2016,(3):7.
[6] 冯珂. 从权利保障到权力制约:论我国民事诉讼模式转换的趋向[J].当代法学,2016,(3):27.
[7] 王亚新. 对抗与判定——日本民事诉讼的基本结构[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2010.82-83.
[8] 袁琳. 基于“同一事实”的诉的客观合并[J].法学家,2018,(2):152.
[9] 王杏飞. 对我国民事诉判关系的再思考[J].中国法学,2019,(2):290.
[10] 叶名怡.《合同法》第122条(责任竞合)评注[J].法学家,2019,(2).
[11] 谢鸿飞.违约责任与侵权责任竞合理论的再构成[J].环球法律评论,2014,(6).
[12] (日)山本克己.“第二次世界大战”后日本民事诉讼法学的诉讼标的论争[J].史明洲译.清华法学,2019,(6):9.
[13] 张弛. 权利并存的类型化处理模式[J].华东政法大学学报,2013,(1):22.
[14] (日)加藤雅信.民法学说百年史——日本民法施行100年纪念[M].牟宪魁译.北京:商务印书馆,2017.468-469.
[15] 张悦. 日本诉讼标的论争回顾——兼论诉讼标的概念的体系性与相对性[A].民事程序法研究[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2017.247.
[16] 傅鼎生.赔偿责任竞合研究[J].政治与法律,2008,(11).
[17] 朱广新. 合同法总则研究(上)[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2018.753.
[18] 张平华. 违约责任与侵权责任竞合:理想模式、现实状态与未来趋向[J].北方法学,2019,(5):15-16.
[19] 胡康生. 中华人民共和国合同法释义[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.190.
[20] 叶名怡. 再谈违约与侵权的区分与竞合[J].交大法学,2018,(1):21.
[21] (日)高桥宏志.民事诉讼法——制度与理论的深层分析[M].林剑锋译.北京:法律出版社,2003.26.
[22] 曹志勋. 德国诉讼标的实体法说的发展——关注对请求权竞合的程序处理[J].交大法学,2018,(1):44.
[23] 李龙. 民事诉讼诉的合并问题探讨[J].现代法学,2005,(2):78.
[24] 杨建华. 问题研析民事诉讼法(三)[M].台北:三民书局,1996.254-259.
[25] 赵秀举. 论请求权竞合理论与诉讼标的理论的冲突与协调[J].交大法学,2018,(1):28.
[26] 曹志勋. 民事立案程序中诉讼标的审查反思[J].中国法学,2020,(1):302.
[27] 李大雪. 德国联邦法院典型判例研究(民事诉讼法篇)[M].北京:法律出版社,2019.62.
[28] 王亚新. 诉讼程序中的实体形成[J].当代法学,2014,(6):141.
[29] 任重. 我国新诉讼资料释明的反思与重构——以《九民会议纪要》与《新证据规定》为中心的解读[J].当代法学,2020,(5):133.
[30] 任重. 法律释明与法律观点释明之辨[J].国家检察官学院学报,2020,(6):171. |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 39 
