Similar To The Research Of Necessary Joint Litigation System

There are two types of the joint action: one is the common Joint action,and the other is the necessary Joint action.The necessary joint action emphasizes that the subject of action is a must.If someone does not join the litigation,it may cause the subject of the lawsuit to be unfit or cause the court to exercise the compulsory additional right.However,because of its disconnection from the provisions of some substantive law,it is difficult for the parties to effectively safeguard their rights and interests.At the same time,Germany,Japan and Taiwan region of China's joint action includes not only the above two,but also similar necessary joint action.Similar necessary joint action allows the parties to sue alone,through the expansion of the force to avoid contradictions judgment.In order to achieve effective convergence between procedural law and substantive law,more and more scholars are calling for the introduction of similar necessary common litigation system in our country's legislation.However,there are also cases in which cases that are not covered by various inherently necessary joint proceedings are included in similar necessary joint proceedings,which blindly expand the scope of application of similar necessary joint proceedings.What are the criteria for the establishment of similar necessary joint proceedings? What is the scope of application? In response to the above problems,this paper first draws on the theory of similar necessary common litigation in the civil law system,and introduces the definition,features and functions of similar necessary common litigation and the differences between the two other common litigation.Secondly,the introduction to the similar necessary common litigation system outside the region,combined with Germany,Japan and Taiwan region of the necessary common litigation unity theory of development,elaborated on the theory of unity from the theory of unity to the entity law on unity to determine the unity of determination of procedural law on the unity of determination.The scope of application of similar necessary joint action has also been reduced with the development of the theory of oneness.At the same time,it analyzes the current legislative status and judicial status of the necessary joint litigation system in China,and summarizes the drawbacks of the current provisions of the necessary joint litigation in judicial practice.Meanwhile,the scope of application of the necessary joint action is too broad to interfere with the parties ' procedural options and is contrary to the separate right of enforcement given by substantive law.Finally,it is suggested that when introducing similar necessary joint litigation in legislation,the foundation should be constructed from the two perspectives of the subject matter of the lawsuit and the relevant provisions of the substantive law.First,based on the common subject of litigation,the subject of litigation is implicated as an exception.Second,the substantive law gives each-individual a separate right to enforcement proceedings.Third,similar to the necessary joint action of the entity should meet the requirements of unity to determine the outcome of the expansion of the ruling force.On the question of the scope of application of similar necessary joint action,this paper argues that the following joint action should be attributed to the similar necessary joint action,the request to change the same legal relationship of joint action.For example,"the Supreme People's Court on the application of the Company Law of the people's Republic of China" several issues(4)"the provisions of Article 3 of the number of shareholders to confirm the shareholders' meeting or the shareholders ' general meeting,the board of Directors resolution is not established,invalid or cancel the resolution of the lawsuit;In the case of claims on the property of the co-ownership,shareholders 'representatives' actions,creditors ' subrogation actions,joint and several liability actions,and litigation involving the subject matter of the claim.