摘要
我国《民事诉讼法》第112条、第113条对虚假诉讼进行了规定,第56条规定第三人撤销之诉以应对虚假诉讼。然而实践中第三人撤销之诉对虚假诉讼的规制效果很不理想。原因在于第三人撤销之诉应用较少,通过其最后确认虚假诉讼的案件极少,虚假诉讼行为人民事责任缺失。通过适当扩大第三人撤销之诉原告范围,协调与相关程序的顺序,一并解决第三人提起的新主张,能更好地把规制虚假诉讼与第三人撤销之诉相结合,发挥其规制虚假诉讼的立法目的。
The article 112 to article 113 of〈Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China〉provide for the false litigation,and article 56 provides for the third party discharge the judgment to deal with the false litigation.However,the effect of the third party’s revocation on the regulation of false litigation is not ideal.The reason is that the application of the third party’s revocation is not common,there are rare cases of the final confirmation of the false litigation,and the civil liability of the false actor is absent.By appropriately expanding the scope of plaintiff in the third party’s revocation,coordinating the sequence of relevant procedures,and solving the new claims brought by the third party,we can better combine the regulation with the third party’s revocation to go against the false litigation.
作者
彭梦茹
赵俊翔
PENG Meng-ru;ZHAO Jun-xiang(School of Law,Hainan University,Haikou 570100,China)
出处
《海南广播电视大学学报》
2020年第2期100-107,共8页
Journal of Hainan Radio & TV University
基金
2018年海南省研究生创新科研课题“海南自贸区(港)背景下企业虚假诉讼的规制研究”(编号:Hys2018-95)阶段性成果。
关键词
虚假诉讼
第三人撤销之诉
再审
范围
false litigation
the third party discharge the judgement
retrial
the scope of plaintiff
