预备的诉答制度

【作者】 李红卫；

【导师】 周庆；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 预备的诉答制度，包括两个方面的内容，即预备的合并之诉和预备的答辩。预备的合并之诉在美国称为“预备的诉答主张”，大陆法系和我国台湾地区称为“预备合并之诉”，两大法系所研究对象基本一致，都是关于原告提出预备合并之诉的问题，但结论不一，没有对被告预备的答辩问题进行研究。 美国伊利诺斯上诉法院在麦考密克诉科普曼的案件中阐述了预备的诉答主张。法官说：“原告提出的两个主张之间存在矛盾，矛盾的不能同时获得满足并不意味着不能同时作为事实主张进行诉答。如果原告有权获得赔偿的话，那么庭审中，证据将会决定原告能够根据哪一个系列的事实获得救济。”如果用抽象的概念来界定预备的预答主张就是：原告基于对事实的不知(包括无法知道、无法确认)或举证不能，提出两个或两个以上相互之间存在矛盾的诉讼主张，在法院对其中一个主张不予支持时，以另一个主张预备请求法院予以支持的诉讼措施。 大陆法系德、日两国和我国台湾地区学者认为：预备合并之诉又叫顺位合并之诉、假定合并之诉。德国通说认为：预备合并之诉是指原告预料其所提起先位之诉无理由，在同一诉讼程序同时提起后位之诉请求判决。原告起诉时，先后位之诉同时发生诉讼系属。如果先位之诉获胜诉确定判决，后位之诉溯及诉讼系属时丧失其诉讼系属的效力，不得再就后位之诉判决。而且认为：先后位诉之间不一定要有相互排斥关系。日本学者和我国台湾地区多数学者的观点同德国通说认识基本一致，差别是：认为先后位之诉之间须有相互排斥关系，上诉法院审理时不受一审审理范围限制，原告提出的主张无论在一审时是否全面审理过，其诉讼系属均系属于上诉法院。 我国学者常怡、李龙提出：预备合并之诉是原告为了预防诉讼因无理由而遭受败诉的后果，同时提出理论上完全不相容的两个以上的不同的诉讼标的，准备在第一位诉讼标的无理由时，请求对第二位诉讼标的进行判决。诉讼标的的概念比“诉、诉讼声明、诉讼主张”等表述更为准确。但在预备合并之诉的情况下，存在多个一诉讼标的，怎样识别和解决诉讼标的问题也很重要。笔者认为，应用二分肢说去识别诉讼标的，同时，提出用诉讼标的竞合观点解决多个诉讼标的存在而只能有一个可能被支持的状态。即在多个诉讼标的中，无论是请求权相同，还是事实与理由相同，只要其中一项相同，就产生诉讼标的竞合。在诉讼标的竞合的情况下，法院只能支持其中一项诉讼标的，这个观点解释了预备合并之诉中多个诉讼标的中仅有一个可能得到支持的结论，也能够解释诉的选择合并或竞合合并状态下，多个诉讼标的只能有一个得到支持的结论。 实践中，不仅预备合并之诉很多，也存在着大量的预各的答辩，但是理论界几乎没有对此问题的研究。预备的答辩是指在一次诉讼中，被告针对原告提出的一个诉讼标的，提出两个或两个以上相互之间存在矛盾的答辩理由，在先位答辩理由不能成立时，以预备的后位答辩理由，请求法院予以支持的答辩措施。先后位的答辩理由是有顺序限制的。先后位答辩理由有着相同或近似的目的;如果先位答辩理由成立，被告一可获胜诉判决，对后位答辩则不必审理。如果先位答辩无理由，才对后位答辩进行审理，_七诉则可全面审理，因为答辩仅仅是被告提出的减免责任的理由，不能单独构成诉，诉是原告提出的。 综合分析前述各国学说，笔者对德、日及我国台湾地区学者观点并不完全赞同，预备合井之诉中，先位之诉未必有优于后位之诉的利益，法院对先后位之诉应同时审查、同时审理、同时辩沦、同时判决。 预备合并之诉和预备的答辩均是在案件事实不明，当事人举证困难或者对法律及裁判结果难以把握的情况下出现的，因而在确立预备诉答的原则时，除了坚持诉讼经济原则和纠纷一次性解决的原则之外，必须引进一诚信诉讼的原则，对于滥用诉权和恶意诉讼现象予以惩处。在经过审查构不成预备诉答的情况下，当事人必须作出放弃部分主张的选择，否则将直接视为自认对方主张，并判令其败诉。更多还原

【Abstract】 Preparatory litigation and reply system, called in the U.S " preparatory litigation and reply claim." The mainland law de-partment in accordance with our Taiwan region calls it "Preparatory merging litigation". Both the law departments’ research objects are basically the same ,concering the problems raised by plainstiff on preparatory merging litigation, but the conclusion is different, haveing no research on rejoinder problems.The appealing court of Illinois state in the U.S illuminated the preparatory litigation and reply claim in Mccormik V kopmann case , The judge said : " There exsits contradiction between the two claims put forward by the plainstiff and that the contradiction can’t acquire satisfaction at the same time doesn’t mean that it can’t be used as the fact claim to proceed rejoinder. If the plainstiff has the rights for compensatory, he can be judged by the evidence to acquire the relief in terms of a kind of fact in court, if it is analysed by abstract concept , the court denies one claim and supports the other preparatory litigation claim which are based on unknown fact or failing to offer evidence and putting forward two or more contradict litigation claims by the plainstiff.Scholars from Germany, Japan and Taiwan have done a lot of research on the mainland law, they think that preparatory merging litigation can be called order merging litigation or supposing merging litigation, the Germans think: preparatory merging litigation means that plainstiff asks for judging on the latter litigation in the same course of expecting that the former litigation is unreasonable. When plainstiff prosecutes, the former or the latter litigations relateeach other, If the former litigation wins and gets judged , the latter litigation and their relationship will vanish and can’t be judged any longer, The Germans also think: It magbe has repeling relationship between them, the major scholars from Japan and Taiwan have the same opinion as Germans ,The difference is: they think there must exists repeling relationship between the former and the latter litigations, appealing court will take up the litigation without the limitation of its first trial whether the plainstiffs claim has been wholly tried on its first trial, its litigation relationship belong to appealing court.Changyi and lilong from our country have put forward that preparatory merging litigation refers to the suffering form the loss of litigation for the sake of the prevention of litigation for no reason.Putting forward at the same time more than two different litigation objects which are theoretically and completely in compatible, preparing for when the first litigation object has no reason, plainstiff can ask for the judgement on the second litigation object, The concept of litigation object is more accurate than litigation, claim or declare, but it is also important how to distinguish and solve the litigation object on the condition that there exists more litigation objects in the course of preparatory merging litigation , It think it maybe has one possibly supported state by using two division methods to identify the litigation object and using the litigation object view to solve several litigation objects’ existence, namely in the course of several litigation objects, whether the requesting rights are the same or the facts and reason are in coincidence, only one of them can make the litigation object integrated. Under the situation of the litigation integration, the court can only support one of the litigation objects , the-standpointexplains the conclusion that only one of them can be supported among many preparatory merging litigations and the state of litigation object merge or integration merge.In practice, not only are there many preparatory merging litigation, but also lots of preparatory rejoinders, among which no research on the problem has been done. Preparatory rejoinder means that in first litigation defendant puts forward two or more self-contradict rejoinder reasons by aiming at the litigation object by plainstiff and asks更多还原