Study On The Competence Of The Third Party's Revocation

With the complexity and diversification of social relations,the complexity of civil disputes is increasing.Civil litigation is a legal way for the main body of the dispute to use legal means to resolve its disputes.The rights and obligations determined through civil litigation have an effect between the two parties.However,due to the complexity of the subject of civil interaction,sometimes the effectiveness of individual cases may be It will involve outsiders and have a negative impact on the rights of third parties outside the case.Based on this,in 2012,China's "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"(hereinafter referred to as "Civil Procedure Law")formally established a system for the revocation of the third party.As an important part of China's outsider's relief system,its legitimacy and necessity is to curb malicious litigation and provide effective and sufficient after-the-fact relief for third parties who are judged by the effectiveness of judgments among others.China's third-person revocation system is based on the third-party revocation system in France and Taiwan.Although the legislative basis of each legislative case is different,it all reflects the intention of third-party private rights and procedures to participate in the protection.Because the establishment of the third-party revocation system in China is still short,and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law on the system are too general and general,there are many problems in the practice of the system.The construction and improvement of the third-person revocation lawsuit system in China,the core issue is to solve the plaintiff eligibility problem of the system,which directly determines the correct application and function of the third-party revocation system in judicial practice.This article takes the case of the Supreme People's Court(2018)Minquan No.235(hereinafter referred to as Case No.235)as an example,in light of the application of the suitability of the plaintiff in the third party in practice,combined with the judicial cases of the courts at all levels and the theoretical circles.The type analysis of the viewpoints,and finally put forward a perfect proposal for the problems arising from judicial practice in the judgment of the plaintiff of the third party.The main body of the paper consists of four chapters:The first chapter takes the case of No.235 of the Supreme People's Court as the entry point,and introduces the research question on the suitability of the plaintiff in the third party.The author introduces the main case of Case No.235 of the SupremePeople's Court,summarizes the controversy of the case,sums up the reasons of the Supreme People's Court,and raises the question of the proper existence of the plaintiff against the third party..The second chapter focuses on the legislative provisions of the third party's revocation of the lawsuit in China,as well as the determination of the plaintiff's eligibility in the third party's revocation of the judicial practice,through the type of summary and summary,case interpretation,for the current China The judicial practice circles explain the appropriateness of the plaintiff's claim against the third party.The third chapter introduces the academic dispute about the suitability of the plaintiff for the revocation of the third party.Based on this,the Supreme People's Court No.235 case is analyzed in detail,and the result of the referee is in line with the legislative provisions but also reflects The emergence of legislation to protect the interests of outsiders is not well-conceived,and the necessary expansion of the plaintiff's qualifications for the revocation of the third party should be made..The fourth chapter summarizes the problems of the plaintiff's suitability in the legislation and practice,and puts forward specific suggestions for the legislative perfection of the plaintiff's resignation of the third party in China: adjust the legislative system and clarify The institutional attributes of the third party's revocation;the conditions for prosecution are expanded,the scope of the plaintiff's eligibility is expanded;the principle of exhaustion of conventional remedies is established to avoid abuse of the system;and a system of litigation is established to avoid post relief.