【作者】 王晓；

【导师】 吴英姿；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2016， 硕士

【摘要】 第三人撤销之诉制度源于法国,其立法目的在于为受前诉确定裁判不利影响的第三人提供救济,即允许其基于对自己合法权利的保护,请求法院撤销或者改变前诉确定裁判中涉及自身利益部分。为了应对司法实践中频发的虚假诉讼问题,2012年《民事诉讼法》修订引入了第三人撤销之诉制度。2015年最高人民法院颁布施行的民事诉讼法司法解释对该制度的具体适用程序进行了详尽的规定。然而,围绕该制度的争议至今仍然争论不休。本文拟从立法目的与实现手段是否相匹配这一角度入手,分析探讨我国第三人撤销之诉制度。文章主体包括正文和结语两个部分,正文部分着重分五个部分展开讨论:第一部分,提出问题。第一部分重点在于问题意识的说明。文章分析了我国第三人撤销之诉制度的研究背景及理论研究现状,探讨了当下的研究热点与研究重点,并提出了本文研究问题,即拟从第三人撤销之诉的立法与实践的脱节入手,分析探讨我国第三人撤销之诉制度。第二部分,我国第三人撤销之诉制度的立法目的。文中首先讨论了我国第三人撤销之诉制度的立法背景,提出其立法目的在于遏制司法实践中的虚假诉讼;其次,从立法目的角度入手,分析了我国虚假诉讼产生的根源及作用方式;最后,论证了我国第三人撤销之诉制度对于规制虚假诉讼的不足,并得出第三人撤销之诉并非是遏制虚假诉讼的有效途径的结论。第三部分,我国第三人撤销之诉制度的比较法思考。本部分主要从比较法角度切入,分析法国及我国台湾地区第三人撤销之诉制度产生的制度语境、理论基础以及具体制度构造,比较了两者之间的差别,厘清了第三人撤销之诉制度产生的本源在于为到受既判力扩张所及的案外人提供救济。第四部分,我国第三人撤销之诉制度的立法技术反思。文中首先从立法技术角度,分析了我国第三人撤销之诉制度在法律移植及立法体例设置方面缺陷,包括立法者对诉求回应的非理性以及制度安排过于局限于问题重重的第三人制度;进而,讨论了由于立法缺陷所引发的司法解释困境及由于制度功能交叉重叠所导致的制度冲突及司法适用困难。第五部分,我国第三人撤销之诉制度的重构。这一部分基于对我国第三人撤销之诉制度所存在问题的反思,提出制度重构的建议。重构我国第三人撤销之诉制度首先要对该制度进行正确定位,突出制度功能在于为受既判力效力扩张所及的案外第三人提供救济,制度性质应定位于非常规诉讼程序中的特殊救济程序。其次,基于上述定位提出了笔者对具体立法措施的完善建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The revocation lawsuit system by the third party originated in France.The purpose of the lawsuit is to provide relief for third person when the law court’s legally effective judgment,verdict and mediation document after trial of cases harm the third person’s interests.In response to the fraud litigation,the Civil Procedure Law adds this lawsuit during its revision in 2012.The judicial interpretation of Civil Procedure Law promulgated by Supreme People’s Court in 2015 make detailed provisions on the specific application of the procedure.However,the controversy about the revocation lawsuit system by the third party is still debated endlessly.This thesis will discuss the revocation lawsuit system by the third party from the perspective that whether the means match to the legislative purposeThe thesis consists of the main body and conclusion.The main body is composed of five parts:The first part is to put forward questions.This part focuses on the awareness of existing problems.This part analyzes the theoretical research background and situation of revocation lawsuit system by the third party and put forward the questions that discussing the lawsuit system from the divorce of legislation and practice.The second part is the legislative intent of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party.This part start with discussing the legislative background of the lawsuit,then put forward that the purpose of the legislation is to restrain the fraud litigation in the judicial practice.Secondly,from the perspective of legislative purpose,this part analyzes the root causes and mode fraud lawsuit in China;Finally,demonstrates the shortcomings and deficiency of the lawsuit for the regulation of fraud litigation.It is not an effective way to curb the fraud lawsuit by the revocation lawsuit system.The third part is the about the comparative law of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party.This part mainly analysis the system context and the theoretical basis of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party in France and Taiwan.The origin of the system lies in providing relief for the third party which influenced by the expansion of the res judicata.The fourth part is the reflection of legislative technique of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party.Firstly,this part analyzes the defects in legal transplantation and legislative style of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party.Furthermore,the thesis discussed the dilemma in interpretation due to the system and the difficulties in judicial practice caused by overlapping functions.The fifth part is about the reconstruction of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party.This part proposed reconstruction proposals,based on the reflection of the problems mentioned above Firstly,reconstruction of orientation of the revocation lawsuit system by the third party must locate the system correctly,highlighting that the system functions as providing relief for the third party which influenced by the expansion of the res judicata.The nature of the system should be set in the special relief procedure of the special litigation procedure.Based on the above positioning,I put forward some suggestions on the improvement of specific legislative measures.更多还原