Study On The Legal Statues Of Joint And Several Liability Litigation

According to the theoretical study of the substantive law, the legal relationship ofjoint and several liability of creditors have absolute right to choose, to fulfill that claims ofcreditors in order to achieve the object chosen to fulfill the order, fulfill contents haveenjoyed absolute right to choose, in order to achieve the protection of creditor claims.Select creditor called on the substantive law, the implementation of this theory to theperformance of civil procedure can be divided into the complaint: the creditor may sue one,several or all of the persons jointly and severally liable, successively or simultaneouslyperform some or all claims are jointly and severally liable person shall not refuse therequest. However, based on our common litigants in civil litigation system, when theresult of the selection can not be achieved while creditors sue the debtor as a co-defendantshould be all that is necessary joint action. In judicial practice, courts hear cases involvingjoint and several liability, generally take the form of joint action is necessary. When onlypart of the joint and several debtors creditors filed a lawsuit, the court ex officio to theother joint and several liability will be added as a co-defendant who, otherwise the partiesdisqualification. Faced with a conflict of substantive law and procedural law, manyscholars did not directly talk about the status of joint and several liability lawsuits person,but to form joint liability lawsuits launched a discussion, opinion formation are: the needfor joint action inherent in the form, similar to the need for joint litigation in the form ofordinary common form of litigation. In fact, in the form of joint and several liabilitylitigation research, that is, in his discussion of joint and several liability who exactly inwhat capacity litigation. In theory, the entry point for scholars of different values to pursuedifferent goals, such as the inevitable formation of different conclusions. But anyway,when we study the status of joint and several liability litigation who must clear thefollowing questions: First, a clear two key system, that system of joint and several liabilityand joint action system. We should analyze the value of the two systems to pursue theirown goals, on this basis, to find a balance between the value of the target to be collusionbetween the two systems together. Second, the study of people’s joint and several liabilitylitigation status, a theoretical problem that we must face the subject of joint and severalliability litigation proceedings. According to the theory shows that the subject of litigation,litigation can be used as the subject of whether the parties confirm eligibility based onwhether the court may ex officio basis of additional parties to confirm the existence of duplicate litigation issues. So, clearly the subject of joint and several liability litigationproceedings is to determine the status of joint and several liability Litigation necessaryway. Third, the claims of creditors in order to maximize the realization often prefer togive it an absolute right to choose in accordance with the provisions of substantive law;joint responsibility of people in order to avoid being sued again, tend to be more hope incivil proceedings, not only solve the external debt, but also to achieve joint personsresponsible for internal claims. This requires the existence of such a program: on the onehand to achieve the option of creditors, one can try again to resolve security disputes,avoiding the defendants jointly and severally liable person tired. So, when we consideredthe status of joint and several liability litigation who must carefully balance the interests ofboth parties. Gradually clear these three issues constitute the main contents of this paper.In combination with the above-mentioned three issues to understand that joint and severalliability of the party should participate as an ordinary lawsuit. This is based on the statusof the status quo on joint and several liability litigation system and the common legislativeand theoretical research to make choices. In order to ensure joint responsibility of theparty who participated as an ordinary proceedings more freely, the paper proposes that weshould further improve the joint responsibility of the entity specification, clear evidence ofcommon principles to clarify and strengthen the right to play judge.