On Identification Of Repeated Prosecution In Civil Litigation

Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China in 2015 incorporated the repeated prosecution system for the first time,and clarified the identification requirements and treatment methods for repeated prosecution.However,due to the many and complicated cases of repeated prosecutions in judicial practice,there are certain problems in the identification of repeated prosecutions in judicial practice.For example,how should the same subject matter be identified? Do some cases in practice equate the subject matter of the lawsuit with the lawsuit request in accordance with China’s national conditions? The theoretical and practical circles do not have a unified answer to these problems.To this end,this article studies the identification criteria of repeated prosecutions in civil litigation by combining the theories of the theoretical world with cases in judicial practice.The research methods of the article include conceptual analysis,empirical analysis,comparative analysis and legal analysis.First,the concept analysis method is used to summarize the definition of repeated prosecution concept by domestic scholars,and the definition of repeated prosecution concept is summarized.At the same time,the legal analysis method is used to introduce the relevant theories in civil litigation and the identification of repeated prosecution.The relationship between repeated prosecutions and the fact that the matter is no longer dealt with and the judgment is justified.Secondly,the empirical analysis method is used to analyze the identification of repeated prosecutions in combination with specific cases.The current legal provisions and judicial status in China point out the shortcomings in the identification of repeated prosecutions.3.The regulation of repeated prosecution cases is not perfect.Through the comparative analysis method,it introduces the provisions of Germany and Japan on repeated prosecution in civil lawsuits,and also introduces the relevant provisions of the United States and the United Kingdom on repeated prosecution.After a comparative analysis,it sums up the identification of repeated prosecution in China.Inspiration.Finally,considering China’s shortcomings in repetitive prosecution identification and relevant experience outside the region,it is considered that in addition to the three elements stipulated in Article 247,common disputes can also be used as an auxiliary identification standard,so as to further put forward suggestions for the improvement of China’s repetitive prosecution system,Including improving the identification standards for repeated prosecutions,improving the handling of repeated prosecutions,establishing a case information sharing system,improving the judge ’s interpretation system,and setting up dispute settlement procedures.