The Mandatory Addition Of Plaintiffs In The Necessary Joint Actions

This paper is to study the mandatory additional of the plaintiffs in the necessary joint actions,focusing on the existing legal provisions and the difficulties in judicial practice from the perspective of the necessary common plaintiffs,and analyze the causes.On this basis,by comparing other countries and regions to deal with the relevant theories and procedural rules of this issue,and to contact the actual situation in China,it provides some suggestions for improving China's mandatory additional system.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the full text is divided into four parts,totaling more than 30,000 words.The first part mainly points out the problems existing in China's mandatory and additional plaintiff system.In accordance with the relevant regulations,the scope of application for the mandatory addition of the necessary joint litigation plains is large.The procedure for adding the necessary common plaintiffs in the litigation is difficult to obtain,the status of the main body of the procedure is easily ignored,and the court is forced to add the court before the judgment is made.In the judicial practice,it is difficult for the court to judge whether the mandatory addition should be applied,the operation is confusing,and the necessary common plaintiffs to be added are in an awkward position in the lawsuit,and the exceptions that are not added lack the operability.The existence of these problems makes it difficult for the mandatory additional system to play its role.The second part mainly analyzes the reasons for the forced existence of the necessary joint litigation plaintiffs.The weak theoretical foundation of China's mandatory addition of the necessary joint litigation plaintiff system,combined with the improper connection between substantive law and procedural law,makes it difficult to determine the scope of mandatory addition.Legislators place more emphasis on protecting the interests of existing plaintiffs when setting up procedural rules,thus ignoring the right to be added to the necessary common plaintiffs,resulting in an imbalance of procedural rights among joint litigants.The third part is to draw on the comparative law of the necessary common plaintiffs.There are two ways to deal with the lack of common plaintiffs in thenecessary joint litigation.One is to respect the disciplinary power of the parties as represented by Germany and Japan,and to restrict the forced addition;one is based on Taiwan and the United States.The way the delegates are allowed to append.Through a comparative study of the relevant regulations,jurisprudence and doctrine of the two methods,it is proposed that China should insist on mandatory addition in the absence of the necessary joint litigation plaintiff,but the design of specific procedural rules can draw on the practices of other countries and regions.The fourth part puts forward suggestions for perfecting China's mandatory additional plaintiff system.It mainly starts from two aspects: theoretical basis and procedural rules.We can use the criteria of “determination of judgment to determine”to identify the necessary joint litigation,and on this basis,we divide it into two categories: inherently necessary joint litigation and similar necessary joint litigation.Therefore,the mandatory additional system is only applicable to the inherently necessary joint litigation with “necessary litigation necessary”.Similarly,the necessary joint litigation is achieved through the expansion of the effectiveness of the judgment,and the purpose of the judgment is unified among the common litigants.Additional regulations.In addition,the author also puts forward corresponding suggestions for improvement from the litigation status of the additional person,the exceptions that are not added,the legal effects and the mandatory additional opposition procedures.