On August 31, 2012, the 28th meeting of the 11th National People's Congress Standing Committee voted on the decision to amend the Civil Procedure Law. Some new litigation systems have been added to the revision of the Civil Procedure Law, and the third party’s revocation is the new one. Although there is controversy in the revision of the establishment of the system in the revision, the research and discussion system of the system to make it operate reasonably is a problem that must be paid attention to in the theoretical and practical circles. This paper attempts to reveal the institutional structure of the third-party revocation complaint through the following analysis, and advances the theoretical problems in the application of the third-party revocation complaint, in order to promote the theoretical and practical circles to explore this system in more depth.
A third party who has the right to claim and has no independent claim, but has not participated in the lawsuit because of the inability to blame himself, but there is evidence that the judgment, ruling, or part of the mediation of the legal effect is wrong, and damages its civil rights The person may, within six months from the date of knowing or ought to know that his civil rights have been damaged, file a lawsuit in the people's court that made the judgment, ruling or mediation. If the people's court hears the case and the lawsuit is filed, it shall change or revoke the original judgment, ruling or mediation; if the lawsuit is not established, the lawsuit shall be rejected. "This provision means that a new litigation procedure and system has been established in China's Civil Procedure Law - the third person revoked the complaint. In a nutshell, the so-called third-party revocation complaint refers to the third party outside the case. Applying to revoke the wrong judgments, rulings and mediations that have already taken effect between others to safeguard their civil rights system. The establishment of this system is a major move in the revision of this Civil Procedure Law.
In the sense of pursuing substantive justice, the purpose of the legislator to add a third person to revoke the lawsuit is to protect the civil rights of the third party outside the case by revoking the wrong judgment, ruling, and mediation book between others. The premise of the revocation of the lawsuit is that the wrong judgment, ruling and mediation document that have already taken effect between others infringe on the interests of the third party outside the case. It is for this reason that it is necessary to revoke the judgments, rulings and mediations that have already taken effect between others. At the same time, in the sense of pursuing procedural justice, the reason why third parties outside the case can revoke the judgments, rulings and mediations that have already taken effect between others is also based on the procedural rights to maintain third parties, with the purpose of procedural guarantee. . The third party to revoke the lawsuit system in China requires that the party who sue the third party to revoke the lawsuit must be a third party who has not participated in the lawsuit because of the inability to blame himself. Since the third party did not participate in the lawsuit in the original judgment, ruling or mediation lawsuit, the procedural rights were not guaranteed. If the third party outside the case participated in the lawsuit between others, the third party could In the lawsuit, by exercising the corresponding litigation rights to protect their civil rights, the third party should be given the opportunity and right to procedurally provide ex post guarantee.
In China, the addition of this system has its practical need, that is, people hate the more common phenomenon of using judicial procedures to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of others. For example, through false litigation, [1] malicious litigation, [U impersonation litigation, [3] the legitimate rights and interests of the third party. In this regard, in terms of legal response, in addition to improving the evidence system, it can effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of third parties. Some scholars' proposals for amendments to the Civil Procedure Law also point out the necessity of the third party to revoke the judgment system. It is also helpful to set up the system to prevent malicious collusion between the two parties and damage the so-called false lawsuits through the lawsuit. Refers to the formal litigation of both parties to the entity through the fictional physical disputes that do not exist (including the existence of no substantive legal relationship between the two parties and the existence of substantive legal relations, but there are no disputes), the intention is to use the court The judgment of the lawsuit reached a lawsuit that harmed the rights or rights of a third party outside the lawsuit.
[2] Malicious litigation refers to the party’s infringement of the right to sue to bring a civil action by fabricating facts or reasons to achieve damage to the interests of the other party.
[3] An impersonation lawsuit means that the prosecutor is not a party to a civil dispute, but file a lawsuit against the other party in the name of one of the parties to the dispute in order to obtain benefits from it.
[4] Article 112 of the revised Civil Procedure Law of 2012 stipulates that if the parties collude in malicious way and attempt to infringe on the lawful rights and interests of others through litigation or mediation, the people's court shall reject the request and impose a fine and detention according to the seriousness of the case. ;Constitute a crime, be held criminally responsible.
Three people right. 5) From the perspective of these proposals, it is obviously affected by the “third-party revocation of litigation†system in the “New Civil Procedure Law†in Taiwan. The "third-party revocation lawsuit" system in the "New Civil Procedure Law" in Taiwan of China originated from the French tiferceopposition system, that is, the third party revoked the judgment objection system. 7) It is logically possible to revoke the erroneous effective judgment, ruling, and mediation form formed in the litigation between others through the revocation of the third party's lawsuit, and to realize the relief of the third party's civil rights and interests. However, some scholars have pointed out that the relief of third-party rights can be achieved through the retrial procedure, without the need to establish an independent third-party revocation system. The main problem with the current lack of relief procedures is that the retrial procedure in the current Civil Procedure Law is not open to third parties. Therefore, it is only necessary to amend the Civil Procedure Law to allow a third person to act as the subject of retrial, and the third party’s rights will be Can be achieved. 8) In the judicial interpretation of the retrial of the Supreme People's Court in 2008, retrial relief was also opened to third parties outside the case. 9] In Taiwan, there are also scholars who have mentioned this point in the dissent of the third party’s revocation of the judgment system. 10] The question here is whether the reinstatement system is used to achieve the relief of third-party rights, or is it alone. Establish a system for revoking third parties. The author believes that if you consider the particularity of a third party's revocation (such as subject restrictions, referee effectiveness, etc.), it is not impossible to set up or stipulate a separate third party's revocation. In essence, the third party's revocation is still attributed to the special remedy, and should be in the scope of retrial. The third party's revocation is essentially the opening of the subject of retrial to the third party.
The question of the necessity of a true resignation of a third party is a question of the relationship between the principle of relativity of the effectiveness of the referee and the protection of the rights of third parties. The so-called principle of relativity of judgments means that the effectiveness of judgments between others is only valid in principle for the parties to the lawsuit, and cannot be restricted to third parties other than the parties. Three people are binding. 11) The principle of relativity of judgment is to protect the third party outside the case [5] Jiang Wei editor: "Civil Codex experts to amend the proposed draft and legislative reasons", Law Press, 2008 edition, page 319. [6] in China The fifth section of the Civil Procedure Law of the Bay Area stipulates that the “third party revocation proceedings†provides the basics for the third party to revoke the judgment system in the first article of the series (Article 507 of the Civil Procedure Law). The content is conceptually used by the “third party to revoke the lawsuit.†Chinese Hewan scholars also generally use the expression “third party to revoke the lawsuitâ€. The author believes that the more accurate statement should be "the third party requests to revoke the judgment lawsuit" can be referred to as "the third person revoked the judgment lawsuit". Therefore, in this article, both France and the similar system in the Hewan area of ​​China are also called The “third party withdraws the judgment system†as a lawsuit and procedure, expressed as “third party revocation judgment lawsuit†“third party revocation judgment lawsuit†“third party revocation judgment procedureâ€
[7] Some scholars translated it as “a third person filed a disqualification objection†or a third party objection. See Jean Vinson, Sergio Kinshaal: The French Civil Procedure Law, Luo Jiezhen, China Legal Publishing House, 2001, pp. 1281, 1282; French New Civil Procedure Code, Luo Jiezhen, China Legal Publishing House, 1999 , Page 117 [9] Article 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Judicial Supervision Procedure of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 5: The outsider's claim on the subject matter of the original judgment, ruling, and mediation If it is unable to bring a new lawsuit to resolve the dispute, it may make the original judgment, ruling, or within three months after the judgment, ruling, or mediation document has been legally effective, or within three months from the time when it is known or should have known that the interest has been damaged. The people's court at the higher level of the mediation book applies for retrial.
[0] See Chen Rongzong, Lin Qingmiao: Civil Procedure Law, Sanmin Book Company Co., Ltd., 2005 edition, p. 808. [1] See (曰) Ito Shin: Judgment on the effectiveness of the third person "Load (曰) Inoue The Code of Justice, Sasaki Shingo, Ito Shin: The New Civil Procedure Law, Japanese Review Society, 1984 edition, p. 295. Because of the principle of relative validity of judgments, judgments between others are not binding on other third parties. Even if another person erroneously confirms that the property of the third party outside the case belongs to another person through the judgment, it does not prevent the right holder from defending his property through litigation. Only when the third person outside the case is bound by the judgment of others, the effectiveness of the judgment is When the three people expand, it may lead to the inability to defend their legal rights through the original lawsuit. However, the effectiveness of the third party’s revocation will be greatly reduced and will be limited to the expansion of the judgment between others. .
The question is whether there is a system of judging power in civil litigation in China. Judging from the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, China has not clearly defined the judgment of the judgment as the civil law countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Although from the end of the 1990s, the views do not seem to be familiar and recognized, and the concept of resilience is used only in a few occasions. Indirectly reflecting the effectiveness of the judgment is the provision of the Civil Procedure Law on "no matter what is going on", that is, in cases where the judgment or ruling has already taken effect, and the party has also filed a lawsuit, the plaintiff has been informed of the grievance, but the ruling of the people's court allowed the withdrawal of the lawsuit. except. As a system, including the subjective scope, objective scope and time scope of the res judicata, the operation of the system also requires a lot of systems and concepts, [such as the subject of litigation. If you do not grasp the concept of litigation, you can not apply the system of judging. The objective scope of the judgment is directly related to the subject matter of the litigation. [5] Of course, a specific civil litigation system does not necessarily have to be clearly defined by law, and the system can also be confirmed by jurisprudence. Even if it is not a case law country, jurisprudence can be a judicial practice, and this is not the case in our country’s judiciary. These judicial practices and jurisprudence often require the corresponding civil litigation theory as a support. For example, regarding the distribution of the burden of proof or the burden of proof, there is no clear law in the civil law countries, but rely on the general theory of the burden of proof or the distribution of burden of proof. However, in China, since the judgment disclosure has not been institutionalized and extensive, it is impossible to form an effective jurisprudence guidance mechanism, and the civil litigation theory has no guiding and supporting role. From this level, it can be argued that China basically has no system of judging power, and if it exists, it only exists in textbooks and theories. Thus, it seems that it can be said that China lacks a mechanism for maintaining the civil rights of third parties through the system of judging power.
In this sense, the third party’s revocation is necessary to maintain the civil rights of third parties. However, from the perspective of perfecting the effectiveness system of judgments, the system of judging power is necessary. Therefore, it is inevitable to finally establish a system of judging power. Once the system of res judicata is established, the revocation of the third party may be greatly limited or even redundant. From the purpose of preventing others from colluding and infringing on the civil rights of third parties through litigation, the original judgment is revoked by retrial to swindle the third person as a retrial case. [2] See Zhang Weiping, Liu Rongjun, Cai Hong: Civil Procedure Law ", Law Press, 1998 edition.
[3] In China's Civil Procedure Law, since there is no system for prohibiting repeated litigation, there is no prohibition in the law for cases that are already in the court but have not yet taken effect, only to ignore the matter. Legally prohibited.
[4] If the concept of the subject of judgment (the concept distinguishes the factual basis and the legal basis of the judgment subject and judgment); the concept and system of judgment effectiveness expansion; the establishment and effectiveness of the judgment; the concept of the power of judgment (the significance of this concept lies in After the judgment is established, the binding force of the court is distinguished from the judgment after the judgment takes effect.
[5] According to the traditional theory of res judicata, the res judicata is limited to the subject matter of the litigation. For the system and concept of judging power, see Jiang Wei, editor: Civil Procedure Law, Higher Education Press, 2009, p. 347. [6] The main reason is the isolation of civil litigation theory and civil litigation practice, making judges in civil justice Almost none of the instruments directly quote the relevant civil litigation theory.
A decision, a ruling and a mediation book may be a more appropriate choice. 17] Second, the nature and characteristics of the third party's revocation of the lawsuit Analysis of the nature and characteristics of the third party's revocation, is conducive to our better grasp and use of the system in litigation practice. The author's analysis is mainly based on the following perspectives: (1) The second person's revocation of the lawsuit is a form of complaint. The person usually divides the lawsuit into a confirmation action and a lawsuit based on the nature and content of the lawsuit. . The confirmation of the complaint refers to the existence or non-existence of the legal relationship that the plaintiff requested the court to confirm its claim. The claim of payment refers to the plaintiff’s claim to the defendant and the request of the court to make a judgment. The so-called payment here refers not only to the defendant's delivery of the plaintiff's money or in kind, but also to the defendant's performance of the plaintiff's required behavior (as inaction). For example, the defendant is required to perform the obligations set out in the contract. The formation of a lawsuit refers to a request by the plaintiff to request the court to change or eliminate the legal status (rights and obligations). The formation of the lawsuit is a common concept in the civil lawsuit theory of the civil law system, also known as the "suit of change of rights." The past textbooks in China are often referred to as “changes of complaintsâ€. The nature of the lawsuit in which the third party revokes can be categorized in the formation of the lawsuit. Although the content of the lawsuit is to revoke the judgment, ruling and mediation between others, the essence is that the decision to change the judgment, the ruling and the mediation book has been Determined legal relationship. This feature is basically consistent with the characteristics of the formation of the lawsuit. Of course, the third party’s revocation of the lawsuit is also different from the form of the lawsuit. The formation of the lawsuit is based on the right of the entity to claim in the civil law - the formation of the right to request, the formation of the obligor, and the third party to revoke the lawsuit is not directly based on the entity's claim, but the procedural law For the court. The claim right in this procedural law is also the subject of litigation for the third party to revoke the lawsuit. At this point, it is similar to the subject matter of the retrial.
(2) The second person revokes the lawsuit as a special remedy procedure. The nature of the procedural lawsuit revoked by the third party refers to the special procedural procedure or the general or usual remedy procedure. Since the third party’s revocation is directed against judgments, rulings and conciliations that have already taken effect in law, the procedural nature of the resignation of the third party should be reconsidered in the nature of the procedure, taking into account the stability of the judgement. [7] The old civil procedure law (Meiji 23) has a so-called "criticism retrial" system (Article 483), that is, someone else deliberately infringes the rights of third parties through a lawsuit (false lawsuit), a third person The original judgment may be revoked by the plaintiff of the original lawsuit and the defendant’s claim for retrial of the retrial. However, this rule was deleted when the Taisho 15 years civil procedure law was revised. Some scholars believe that this is a mistake in the legislation. Therefore, in the interpretation theory, there are still people who advocate the application of the retrial procedure. In the case of retrial, it can be regarded as the violation of the original judgment due to lack of agency power. See (Japan) San Gu Zhongzhi: "The Jurisprudence of Civil Retrial", Legal Culture Society, 1988 edition, page 38, the judgment or dismissal of the ruling, the third party whose rights have been violated, because they cannot be accused of their own reasons, did not participate in the lawsuit An attack and defense method that affects the judgment can be proposed. There is a similar provision in the Japanese Personnel Litigation Law, that is, a third person who is expanded by the judgment can decide to revoke the invalidity, divorce, etc. of the marriage on the grounds of violating the relevant provisions of the civil law. See (Japan) Xintang Xingsi: "The Role of the Civil Litigation System", which has a 1993 edition of the Gege, page 328, which is a special or extraordinary relief procedure. 18] However, the third party’s revocation is different from the retrial. The difference is that after the third party’s third party is the third person in the original lawsuit, unlike the original lawsuit. A certain amount of litigation rights have been exercised in the original lawsuit. Therefore, in terms of focusing on the stability of the referee, there is no need to reach the level of the retrial process. In other words, in judicial policy, the threshold for a third party to revoke a complaint should be lower than the retrial procedure. This is mainly manifested in the need for a retrial procedure for retrial appeals. It is a “second-order†setup. The first phase is a review of the retrial, with retrial reasons, and enters the retrial stage of the case. The third party’s revocation is the same as the general civil lawsuit, and it is still a hierarchical structure. There is no reason to review it. However, the third party’s revocation is not a normal appeal relief procedure, and it is strict for the initiation of the third party’s revocation proceedings. Requirements, otherwise, will affect the stability of the legal relationship that has been resolved because of the abuse of the revocation proceedings.
(2) The second person's revocation is a post-relief procedure. In China, there are two types of litigation systems that protect the third party's ex ante procedural rights and safeguard their civil rights, that is, there is independent claim for third party and no independence. The third party to claim. Both systems are systems that guarantee the legitimate rights and interests of third parties, and are a pre-procedural guarantee relative to the third-party revocation. The so-called "ex ante" here refers to the stage of the procedure before the case is accepted, the judgment of the case, and the mediation take effect. After that, the procedure for redressing the rights involved in the case is an after-the-fact procedure. The criteria for ex ante and after the event are whether the referee is in force. In general, the usual relief procedures are ex ante procedures, and ex post relief procedures are special and exceptional. The third party’s revocation as a post-hoc relief procedure must have certain conditions, otherwise it cannot be mentioned. This condition is that the third party has not participated in the lawsuit between others because of the inability to blame himself, resulting in the inability to exercise the right of litigation in the lawsuit, thereby failing to safeguard his or her legitimate rights and interests. This system is considered to be an after-the-fact procedural guarantee because the system is set solely to achieve the procedural rights of the parties. If the third party could have participated in the lawsuit between others but did not participate in the lawsuit for his own reasons, he could not file a lawsuit against the third party, even if the third party had evidence to prove that the referee or mediation paper was indeed wrong, the infringement Have their own legitimate rights and interests. Emphasizing the procedural rights of the parties is considered to be an important feature and trend of modern civil procedural jurisprudence. In the civil law countries, influenced by the British and American legitimate procedural concepts and litigation philosophy, some scholars proposed the third wave of so-called procedural safeguards (the third wave of civil procedure guarantee), and advocated that the development of civil procedures should turn to procedural safeguards instead of Simple physical protection. This theory firstly revised the teleology of traditional civil litigation from the perspective of teleology, and believed that the purpose of civil litigation is to achieve the procedural guarantee of the rights of the parties, not just to resolve the dispute. 19] The viewpoint of procedural safeguard theory for the establishment of the third-party revocation judgment system in Taiwan in China [8] In the "Civil Procedure Law" of the Hewan area of ​​China, the third-person revocation judgment system was placed in the fifth retrial. In the fifth series.
Judging from its legal arrangement, the intention is that the third party's revocation of the judgment system is a retrial, but it is different from the general retrial.
[9] The Japanese scholar Inoue Therapy published 12 papers on procedural safeguardism between 1983 and 1991, and systematically expounded the viewpoint of procedural safeguardism. Professor Inoue’s procedural safeguard theory elucidated the development trend of the so-called civil procedure, the third wave. This trend reflects five transformations: 1 shifting from heavy results to heavy processes; 2 shifting from focusing on the past to focusing on the future; 3 shifting from focusing on other laws to focusing on self-discipline; 4 shifting from final to tentative; 5 from absolute normative steering of norms The relative instrumentality of the specification. The keynote emphasizes the legitimacy of the procedure and the subjective position of the parties. For the procedural safeguard theory, see the (Japanese) Inoue Code: "Civil Procedures" (the book collects 12 papers on the procedural support theory published by Inoue), published by the Gee Ge in 1991; Xintang Xingsi: "Procedural safeguards The generation and development of the theory--the latest trend of the civil procedure law" contained in the "The Role of the Civil Litigation System", has the 1993 edition of the Gege, and the structure of Page 321 has a direct influence. It can be said that without the theoretical support of the procedural guarantee theory, it is impossible. The theory or understanding that a third person revoked the judgment system is naturally revolutionary to China’s current tradition and reality. Judging from the tradition and reality of our country, the concept of litigation is mainly focused on substantive and light procedures, pure pursuit of substantive justice and substantive reality, and does not pay attention to the procedural guarantee of the rights of the parties. This can be found from the current Code of Civil Procedure Law. Therefore, in this regard, the cognitive basis of the third person's revocation can be said to be a challenge to the traditional concept of civil litigation, which helps people to deepen their understanding of the inherent relationship between procedural justice, procedural legitimacy and legitimacy.
Of course, we can also interpret it from the perspective of preventing the abuse of ex post relief rights, that is, if we do not set up non-responsible for the third person’s own reasons, we do not participate in litigation between others, but only provide that the referee or mediation book is wrong. The third party’s revocation of the lawsuit will result in the third party’s abuse of the right of revocation, which will not only widely shake the stability of the legal relationship that has been resolved, but will also cause the third-party litigation system to fail to perform its due function. Requirements for the litigation economy. Moreover, from the scope of the object of the new civil procedure law to include the ruling and the mediation book in the third-party revoked case, it seems that the issue of procedural safeguards is not perfected, because the ruling and the revocation of the mediation book are usually not in the third place. The reason why people did not participate in the lawsuit.
When recognizing a third party’s revocation, it should pay attention to the difference between the system and the third party’s dissent. Although the third-party objection complaint was also filed by a third party outside the case, it was also based on the maintenance of his civil rights, but the two were essentially different in the nature of the procedure. In 2007, China revised the Civil Procedure Law in part. One of the main contents was the revision of the enforcement system. The revised civil enforcement procedure added a system of appeals against outsiders. Article 24 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates: "In the course of execution, if the outsider raises a written objection to the execution of the subject matter, the people's court shall examine it within 15 days of the receipt of the written objection. If the grounds are established, the ruling shall be suspended. If the reasons are not established, the ruling shall be rejected. If the outsider or the party disagrees with the ruling and believes that the original judgment or ruling is wrong, it shall be handled in accordance with the trial supervision procedure; if it is not related to the original judgment or ruling, it may be within 15 days from the date of the ruling. In accordance with the provisions of this article, if the outsider’s objection to the execution of the object is not related to the original judgment or ruling, that is, the error of the execution of the subject is not due to an error as an enforcement basis (judgment or ruling), for example In the implementation, the specific property of the outsider is mistakenly used as the target to be executed in the judgment based on the execution. Under such circumstances, the outsider can achieve relief for his or her own rights by filing a lawsuit. The case of the outsider’s objection is that the outsider’s enforcement of the creditor as the defendant (in principle) requires the court to make a lawsuit that may not enforce or revoke the execution of the procedural judgment. The purpose is to prevent or revoke the enforcement agency’s execution of the subject matter.
In addition to the different stages of the application of the dismissal of the third party and the case of the outsider, the case of the objection of the case is only in the early or mid-1990s, and the so-called new procedure guarantee is proposed by the civil law law community in Hewan District of China. On, and gradually become a dominant concept, and in recent years, the revision of the "Civil Litigation Law" is basically guided by this "procedural guarantee theory." The advocate of this concept is Professor Qiu Liangong, who studied at the University of Tokyo and taught at the Law Department of Hewan University. He proposed the so-called surprise prevention theory and the new procedure guarantee concept gradually became an important concept affecting the civil litigation system in the Hewan area of ​​China. For more details, see Qiu Liangong: "Procedural Interest Protection Theory", published by the Sanmin Book Company in 2005.
Limited to the implementation stage, there is no entry into the implementation stage, there will be no complaints from outsiders, and enforcement will induce rights disputes; third parties will revoke the lawsuits as long as the original judgment, ruling, and mediation paper take effect, regardless of the original judgment, ruling, mediation Whether it enters the implementation stage can be mentioned. The main difference between the two is that the third person's revocation is a post-procedure procedure, and the outsider's dissent is a pre-procedure. The reason why the outsider’s objection is a pre-procedure is because the lawsuit does not exist in the premise of participating in another person’s lawsuit. The objection to the case is directly directed at the disputes of others about their own rights, rather than against referees or mediations between others. The middle section of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "if it is not related to the original judgment or ruling, it may bring a lawsuit to the people's court within 15 days from the date of the ruling of the confession", which means that the lawsuit is not against the original judgment or ruling, and therefore is not a Post-relief relief procedures.
3. The question of the eligible party to the third party's revocation of the suit of the third party's revocation, what kind of plaintiff is the plaintiff of the third party's revocation, and who the legitimate defendant should be. problem. The problem of the eligible party is the basic problem of the third party's revocation.
In particular, the question of the plaintiff's eligibility for the third party's revocation is related to the important issue of whether the third party's revocation is effective or not, and therefore must be thoroughly studied in theory.
(1) The plaintiff revoked by the third party According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, the plaintiff revoked by the third party must be equivalent to the third party who has the independent claim right and the third party without the independent claim right. The third person. The so-called independent claim third party refers to the person who claims the independent claim of the litigation object of the dispute between others, and participates in the litigation between others. The third party who has the independent claim right usually because he has the right to claim the entity in the substantive law, and participates in the litigation of others because the request claimed by others conflicts with the claim that he has enjoyed, and the other is not entitled to the entity. Claim right. The so-called third party without independent claim means that although there is no independent claim for the objection of the dispute between others, the result of the lawsuit between them is legally related to itself, and the person applying for or notifying the lawsuit is notified. . The third party without independent claim can be divided into two categories in China's civil procedure law: the auxiliary third person and the defendant type third person. The auxiliary third person is always standing on the party of the lawsuit, otherwise it is not a support person, usually taking the initiative to participate in the lawsuit. [2] The third party of the defendant type is the plaintiff and the defendant who are independent of the lawsuit and may bear civil liability. Usually, the court will include it in the lawsuit based on the request of the defendant. litigation. In some cases, the defendant-type third party will take the initiative to participate in the lawsuit against the accused party, mainly the accused of the accused. Therefore, the status of the third person is actually in the position of the defendant.
According to the intent of the legislator, if the judgment, ruling or mediation document that has already taken effect between others has harmed the interests of the third party outside the case because of mistakes, the third party may apply to revoke the judgment, ruling and mediation. This kind of relief is based on the judgment, ruling, and mediation. [2] The auxiliary type has no independent claim. The third person is equivalent to the participant from the civil law country or region. Since the third party who has no independent claim right in China actually includes the third person of the defendant type, it is not possible to simply equate the third person without the independent claim right with the participant from the civil law system.
See Zhang Weiping: "Civil Litigation: Unfolding", Renmin University of China Press, 2004, p. 157. After the entry into force of the book, it is an after-the-fact relief procedure and means. A third party with independent claim rights, in the case of a third person who is the subject of revocation, fails to participate in litigation between others because of his non-blame for his own reasons, and therefore cannot claim his claim in the lawsuit of others. Maintain your civil rights. If there is an independent claim, the third party can claim his own independent claim in the litigation of another person, and the plaintiff and the defendant in the litigation of the other person will become the defendant of the third party litigation. If the third party's independent claim is established, the original plaintiff's request cannot be established, so that the legitimate rights and interests of the third party with independent claim can be maintained. Since the third party has the right to request for an independent claim, it is an independent claim for the subject matter of the dispute of another person. The third party who has the independent right to participate in the lawsuit also participates in the lawsuit by way of prosecution. Therefore, In the civil procedure jurisprudence, even if the third party does not participate in the lawsuit, the third party can still claim rights to others after the judgment, ruling, and mediation of others have taken effect. As far as the effectiveness of the judgment is concerned, the judgment, ruling and mediation between others are not binding on the third party. The reason for the third-party system of independent claims is to solve the disputes together and improve the efficiency of litigation. Therefore, if the third party’s revocation is applicable to a third party with independent claim, it means that the third party has an additional remedy for the independent claim, and can directly claim the plaintiff and the defendant in the other party’s lawsuit as the defendant. Rights can also overturn referees and mediations between others. The former is a general right relief procedure and the latter is a special ex post relief procedure. It should be considered here that if there is a general relief procedure, it is necessary to apply a special ex post relief procedure. Moreover, if the judgment against another person is not binding on the third party itself, there is doubt as to whether it is necessary to overturn the referee between others. This issue has returned to the issue of the judging power of the judgment mentioned earlier in this article.
In the case of a third party without independent claim, since there are two types of third parties without independent claims - auxiliary and defendant type third parties, our analysis will also be based on the third party without independent claim. Type is expanded. Since only the defendant-type third person is likely to bear civil liability, if the judgment on requesting the third party to bear civil liability is wrong, it may cause damage to the third party's civil rights. Thus, in the case of a third party without an independent claim, only the defendant-type third person can act as the plaintiff of the revocation of the lawsuit, and is the plaintiff who revokes the suitability. In the case of a third party without independent claim, if the third party participates in the lawsuit because of the court's notice, the lawsuit rights can be exercised in the first and second trials to protect their legitimate rights and interests. If the first instance does not participate, the court's judgment makes it bear civil liability. In theory, the third party can appeal, requesting the revocation of the original judgment to be sent back for retrial or requesting a change of judgment, and can also realize the right relief. However, when the judgment has already taken effect, the third person without independent claim can seek relief through the third party's revocation. This situation should be relatively small, or the probability of occurrence is very low, because the defendant-type third party is usually notified by the court to participate in the lawsuit. Since it has been notified, if the third party does not participate in the lawsuit, it can only be his own. The reason is that the conditions for filing a lawsuit against the third party are lost. In addition, if it is recognized that the third person is actually the defendant's status, the third person can seek relief through application for retrial, and the retrial is a violation of the law.
In France, according to the provisions of Article 5 83 of the French Civil Procedure Law, the plaintiff who sue the third party to revoke the judgment should firstly be the one who has an interest in the judgment that is requested to be revoked. In theory, the interest here refers to the damage to the third party due to the illegal judgment [3] because the third party who bears the civil liability is still the party, even if the third party does not participate in the lawsuit, the third party has the right to appeal. , seeking appeal relief.
interest. This kind of interest not only refers to material or property interests, but also to spiritual interests; 2 secondly, the plaintiff should be a person who has not participated in the lawsuit as a party or an agent in the original judgment proceedings.该æ¡ç¬¬1项åˆå…·ä½“规定为，1方当事人的债æƒäººåŠæƒåˆ©ç»§å—人在原判决è¿æ³•ä¾µå®³æƒåˆ©æˆ–å…¶ä¸»å¼ ç‹¬è‡ªï¼ˆä¸ªäººï¼‰æ³•å¾‹ç†ç”±æ—¶ï¼Œå¯ä»¥æ起撤销之诉。该æ¡ç¬¬2项规定，对于éžè®¼æ¡ˆä»¶ï¼Œæœªå—é€è¾¾çš„第三人å¯ä»¥å¯¹éžè®¼æ¡ˆä»¶çš„判决æ起撤销判决的诉讼。
在我国å°æ¹¾åœ°åŒºï¼Œæ起第三人撤销判决诉讼的原告须具备两个æ¡ä»¶ï¼šå…¶ï¼Œæ˜¯ä¸Žä»–人之间的诉讼判决有法律上利害关系的第三人。其二，ä¸æ˜¯å› 为第三人的过错而没有å‚åŠ ä»–äººä¹‹é—´çš„è¯‰è®¼ï¼Œå¯¼è‡´å…¶ä¸èƒ½æ出足以影å“该判决的攻击或防御方法。如果满足了这两个æ¡ä»¶ï¼Œå³ä¸ºé€‚æ ¼çš„ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€åˆ¤å†³è¯‰è®¼çš„åŽŸå‘Šã€‚å…³äºŽä½•è°“â€œæ³•å¾‹ä¸Šä¹‹åˆ©å®³å…³ç³»çš„ç¬¬ä¸‰äººâ€ï¼Œæ³•æ¡ä¸Šå¹¶æœªå…·ä½“予以指明，但从“立法ç†ç”±â€çš„说明æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œæˆ‘国å°æ¹¾å¦è€…一般认为，应当是指å—判决效力拘æŸçš„第三人。“立法ç†ç”±â€æŒ‡å‡ºï¼šå› 为å˜åœ¨åˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›æ‰©å¼ æƒ…å½¢ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå¦‚æžœå—æ¤åˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›æ‰©å¼ å½±å“的第三人在没有å¯å½’è´£äºŽè‡ªå·±çš„åŽŸå› è€Œæ²¡æœ‰å‚åŠ è¯¥è¯‰è®¼çš„æƒ…å½¢ä¸‹ä¾¿å¼ºä»¤å…¶å—ä¸åˆ©åˆ¤å†³çš„拘æŸï¼Œæ— 疑剥夺了该第三人的诉讼æƒã€è´¢äº§æƒï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œåœ¨ä¿æŠ¤è¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæƒç›Šçš„å¿…è¦èŒƒå›´å†…å¯ä»¥è¯·æ±‚撤销原确定判决。
虽然å¯ä»¥å°†ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€åˆ¤å†³è¯‰è®¼çš„原告ç†è§£ä¸ºå—åŽŸåˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›æ‰©å¼ å½±å“的第三人，但法律上的规定ä¾ç„¶æ˜¯æŠ½è±¡çš„。所谓判决效力åŠäºŽç¬¬ä¸‰äººï¼Œåœ¨æ³•å¾‹ä¸Šæœ‰æ˜Žç¡®è§„定的是我国å°æ¹¾åœ°åŒºçš„规定以åŠâ€œæ°‘法â€ç¬¬275æ¡å…³äºŽè¿žå¸¦å€ºåŠ¡çš„åˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›æ‰©å¼ çš„è§„å®šã€‚æŒ‰ç…§å°æ¹¾æ°‘äº‹è¯‰è®¼åˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›æ‰©å¼ çš„ç†è®ºï¼Œæœ‰å¦è€…认为在涉åŠäººäº‹ï¼ˆèº«ä»½å…³ç³»ï¼‰è¯‰è®¼ä¸å¦‚å©šå§»æ— æ•ˆä¹‹è¯‰ã€æ’¤é”€å©šå§»ä¹‹è¯‰ã€ç¡®è®¤å©šå§»æˆç«‹æˆ–ä¸æˆç«‹ä¹‹è¯‰ã€å¦è®¤å女之诉ã€è®¤é¢†å女之诉ã€è®¤é¢†æ— 效之诉ã€æ’¤é”€è®¤é¢†ä¹‹è¯‰ç‰ä»¥åŠå…³äºŽæ³•äººå…³ç³»æˆ–å…¬å¸å…³ç³»çš„诉讼ä¸æ³•äººç¤¾å‘˜ä»¥åŠå…¬å¸è‚¡ä¸œæœ‰å‚与诉讼程åºä¿éšœåˆ©ç›Šï¼Œå› æ¤åˆ¤å†³çš„æ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›åº”æ‰©å¼ åŠæ³•äººç¤¾å‘˜åŠè‚¡ä¸œï¼Œå¦‚撤销法人总会决议之诉ã€å®£å‘Šè´¢å›¢è‘£äº‹è¡Œä¸ºæ— 效之诉ã€æ’¤é”€å…¬å¸è‚¡ä¸œä¼šå†³è®®ä¹‹è¯‰ã€å®£å‘Šè‚¡ä¸œä¼šå†³è®®æ— 效之诉ã€è§£ä»»å…¬å¸è‘£äº‹ä¹‹è¯‰ã€‚2ç”±äºŽåˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›æ‰©å¼ çš„æƒ…å½¢ï¼Œå¦è€…å˜æœ‰äº‰è®®ï¼Œå› æ¤å…³äºŽç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€åˆ¤å†³è¯‰è®¼çš„åŽŸå‘Šé€‚æ ¼é—®é¢˜åœ¨å¦æœ¯ä¸Šä¹Ÿæ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªå°šæ— 定论的问题。〔7〕我国å°æ¹¾åœ°åŒºâ€œæ–°æ°‘事诉讼法â€å®žæ–½åŽï¼Œäº›æ³•é™¢ä¹ŸæŒ‰ç…§è¯¥â€œæ°‘事诉讼法â€çš„规定审ç†å’Œåˆ¤ã€”4〕（法）让文森ã€å¡žå°”西金沙尔：法国民事诉讼法è¦ä¹‰ã€‹ï¼ˆ1999年，第25版），罗结ç译，ä¸å›½æ³•åˆ¶å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾2001年版，页1286.该书第28版于2006年出版，在论åŠç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€åˆ¤å†³è¯‰è®¼çš„主体æ¡ä»¶æ—¶ï¼Œå¢žåŠ 了人撤销判决制度的介ç»ï¼Œåœ¨æ¤è¡¨ç¤ºæ„Ÿè°¢ã€‚
〔5〕å‚è§å•å¤ªéƒŽï¼šç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰â€•â€•æ‰€è°“有法律上利害关系之第三人“载《月旦法å¦æ‚志》2003年第99å·ã€‚
〔6〕å‚è§é™ˆè£å®—ï¼šç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€è¯‰è®¼ä¹‹åŽŸå‘Šå½“äº‹äººé€‚æ ¼â€œã€Šæœˆæ—¦æ³•å¦æ‚志》2004年第115å·ã€‚
决了第三人撤销判决的诉讼，但关于何谓法律上的利害关系人，实务界也认识迥异。在我国å°æ¹¾åœ°åŒºå°ä¸é«˜åˆ†é™¢ä¸€èµ·ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€åˆ¤å†³è¯‰è®¼ä¸ï¼Œæ³•é™¢è®¤å®šç¬¬ä¸‰äººç³»åŽŸåˆ¤å†³å½“äº‹äººæˆ¿äº§çº çº·ä¸æ ‡çš„物的买å—人，享有å‘原当事人之请求所有æƒè½¬ç§»ç™»è®°çš„债æƒï¼Œå› æ¤æ˜¯ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€è¯‰è®¼çš„利害关系人。但在我国å°åŒ—地方法院审ç†çš„å¦èµ·ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€è¯‰è®¼çš„案件ä¸ï¼ŒåŒæ ·æ˜¯ç³»äº‰æ ‡çš„物的所有人，法院å´è®¤ä¸ºè¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººä¸å—å‰è¯‰åŽŸåˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›çš„拘æŸï¼Œå› 而ä¸æ˜¯æ’¤é”€è¯‰è®¼çš„é€‚æ ¼åŽŸå‘Šã€‚
（二）第三人撤销之诉的被告第三人撤销之诉的被告是原判决ã€è£å®šã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ä¸çš„原告和被告当事人。如果原诉讼有第三人的，则è¦å…·ä½“分æžï¼Œçœ‹è¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ˜¯å¦åº”当作为被告。从ç†è®ºä¸Šè®²ï¼Œè¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ˜¯æœ‰ç‹¬ç«‹è¯·æ±‚æƒç¬¬ä¸‰äººçš„ï¼Œå› ä¸ºè¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººä¸»å¼ äº†å®žä½“æƒåˆ©ï¼Œæ— 论第三人是å¦è´¥è¯‰ï¼Œéƒ½æ¶‰åŠä»–的实体æƒåˆ©ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œè¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººåº”当作为被告，从而å¯ä»¥åœ¨ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰ä¸ä¸€å¹¶è§£å†³å®žä½“æƒåˆ©æ˜¯å¦æˆç«‹çš„é—®é¢˜ã€‚å¯¹äºŽæ— ç‹¬ç«‹è¯·æ±‚æƒç¬¬ä¸‰äººçš„场åˆåº”å½“å°†è¯¥ç¬¬ä¸‰äººä½œä¸ºè¢«å‘Šï¼Œå› ä¸ºæ— ç‹¬ç«‹è¯·æ±‚æƒçš„第三人在原诉ä¸çš„地ä½å®žé™…ä¸Šå°±æ˜¯è¢«å‘Šï¼Œå› æ¤åœ¨ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰ä¸ï¼Œä¹Ÿä¾ç„¶åº”当作为被告。
å››ã€ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体所谓第三人撤销之诉的客体，是指第三人撤销之诉ä¸ç¬¬ä¸‰äººè¯·æ±‚法院撤销的对象。我国的第三人撤销之诉与法国和我国å°æ¹¾åœ°åŒºçš„撤销之诉有所ä¸åŒï¼Œä¸ä»…包括生效判决，也包括è£å®šå’Œè°ƒè§£ä¹¦ã€‚
判决是对民事诉讼实体争议的è£åˆ¤ï¼Œä»–人之间的错误判决有å¯èƒ½åœ¨å®žä½“上æŸå®³æ¡ˆå¤–第三人的民事æƒç›Šï¼Œä¹Ÿå°±å¯ä»¥ä½œä¸ºæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体。与法国ä¸åŒï¼Œæˆ‘国撤销之诉的客体为已ç»å‘生法律效力的判决。这里考虑的是åªæœ‰ç”Ÿæ•ˆçš„判决æ‰èƒ½å®žé™…å‘ç”Ÿå®žä½“ä¸Šçš„æ³•å¾‹æ•ˆæžœï¼Œå› æ¤è§„定åªæœ‰ç”Ÿæ•ˆåˆ¤å†³æ‰èƒ½æˆä¸ºæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体。由æ¤ï¼Œä¼¼ä¹Žåœ¨æˆ‘国也有既判力的æ„æ€ã€‚在法国的场åˆï¼Œç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰ä¸é™äºŽåŽŸåˆ¤å†³å·²ç»ç¡®å®šï¼Œåªè¦æ˜¯ç»ˆå±€åˆ¤å†³ï¼Œå³å¯ä»¥æ起。虽然在法国，第三人撤销判决诉讼也被作为特殊救济程åºï¼Œä¹Ÿè§„定了既判力制度，也承认判决效力的相对性，但与其他大陆法系国家如德ã€æ—¥ä¸åŒï¼Œæ³•å›½åˆ¤å†³çš„既判力并没有在民事诉讼法ä¸è§„定，而是规定在法国民法典之ä¸ã€‚在性质上，法国将既判力åŠç›¸å…³ç†è®ºå½’属于实体法层é¢çš„é—®é¢˜ã€‚å› æ¤ï¼Œåœ¨æ³•å›½ï¼Œå¸¸å¸¸å°†åˆ¤å†³çš„效力ç‰åŒäºŽå¥‘约的效力；德ã€æ—¥åˆ¤å†³æ•ˆåŠ›åŠç›¸å…³ç†è®ºå½’属于诉讼法层é¢ã€‚
è¿™ç§å·®å¼‚表现在：在法国，所有终局判决一ç»å®£å‘Šï¼Œå³å…·æœ‰æ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›ï¼Œç›¸å½“于德ã€æ›°åˆ¤å†³ç†è®ºä¸çš„〔8〕å‚è§é»„å›½æ˜Œï¼šâ€œç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€è¯‰è®¼ä¹‹åŽŸå‘Šé€‚æ ¼â€•â€•è¯„æœ€è¿‘å‡ºçŽ°ä¹‹äºŒä¸ªè£åˆ¤å®žä¾‹â€ã€Šæœˆæ—¦æ³•å¦æ‚志》ç¾æŸåŠ›ã€‚如果ä¸æœåˆ¤å†³çš„当事人用尽所有通常救济手段之åŽï¼Œæœªèƒ½æŽ¨ç¿»è¯¥åˆ¤å†³çš„，该判决å‘生“ä¸å¯äº‰æ•ˆåŠ›â€ï¼ˆirr6vocale）。法国未确定的判决å³å…·æœ‰æ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›æ•ˆæžœï¼Œæ˜¯å› 为在法国民法制定之å‰ï¼Œç†è®ºä¸Šå·²ç»è®¤å¯äº†æœªç¡®å®šåˆ¤å†³å³å…·æœ‰æ‹Ÿåˆ¶çœŸå®žæˆ–ç»å¯¹æ•ˆåŠ›çš„观点，并为民法所接å—。
也就是说，在法国法上，所有终局判决å‡æœ‰è¢«æŽ¨å®šä¸ºçœŸå®žçš„效力。而在德ã€æ—¥ï¼Œä¾æ®åˆ¤å†³æ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›åˆ¶åº¦å’Œç†è®ºï¼Œæœªç¡®å®šçš„判决基本上ä¸å‘生对当事人的效力。
调解书与判决书相åŒï¼Œä¹Ÿæ¶‰åŠäº‰è®®æ°‘事æƒç›Šé—®é¢˜ï¼Œå› 为调解书也与判决具有åŒç‰æ³•å¾‹æ•ˆåŠ›ï¼Œæœ‰æ‰§è¡ŒåŠ›ï¼Œå› æ¤é”™è¯¯çš„调解书也å¯èƒ½æŸå®³ç¬¬ä¸‰äººçš„民事æƒç›Šï¼Œä¹Ÿåº”当作为撤销之诉的客体。
将调解书纳入第三人撤销之诉的客体范围是我国第三人撤销之诉的一大特色。在我国，调解实际上也是一ç§å®¡åˆ¤æ´»åŠ¨ï¼Œè°ƒè§£çš„è¾¾æˆç¦»ä¸å¼€æ³•å®˜çš„活动，而且法官在调解过程ä¸å…·æœ‰å¾ˆå¼ºçš„引导作用。调解书更是法院的ç§å¸æ³•æ–‡ä¹¦ï¼Œæ³•å¾‹ä¸Šè°ƒè§£ä¹¦ä¸Žåˆ¤å†³å…·æœ‰åŒç‰æ•ˆåŠ›ã€‚åŸºäºŽè¿™æ ·çš„ä¸å›½ç‰¹è‰²ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå°†è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ä½œä¸ºå®¢ä½“是å¯ä»¥ç†è§£çš„。3W关于å¯é€šè¿‡æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰äºˆä»¥æ’¤é”€çš„è£å®šï¼Œæƒ…形相对å¤æ‚些，也是个å˜æœ‰å¼‚议的问题，å³èƒ½å¦é€šè¿‡è¯‰çš„æ–¹å¼è¯·æ±‚撤销法院的è£å®šã€‚æ³•å¾‹ä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥ä½œå‡ºè¿™æ ·çš„è§„å®šï¼Œä¹Ÿè®¸æ˜¯ä»¥å†å®¡å®¢ä½“作为å‚照。å³ä½¿å¯ä»¥é€šè¿‡è¯‰çš„æ–¹å¼è¯·æ±‚撤销è£å®šï¼Œä¹Ÿå› 为民事诉讼ä¸çš„è£å®šæœ‰å¾ˆå¤šï¼Œæ°‘事诉讼法åˆæ²¡æœ‰æ˜Žç¡®è§„定å¯ä»¥æ’¤é”€çš„è£å®šçš„范围，这就使得哪些è£å®šå¯ä»¥ä½œä¸ºæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体æˆä¸ºä¸€ä¸ªé—®é¢˜ã€‚在认å¯å¯é€šè¿‡è¯‰çš„æ–¹å¼è¯·æ±‚撤销è£å®šçš„å‰æ下，笔者分æžçš„æ€è·¯æ˜¯ï¼Œå›žç”这问题，首先应当确定å¯æ’¤é”€è£å®šçš„å‰ææ¡ä»¶ï¼Œå¯ä»¥è€ƒè™‘以下两点：其，应当是那些直接侵害第三人民事æƒç›Šçš„错误è£å®šã€‚也就是说，应当是那些直接涉åŠç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ°‘事实体æƒç›Šçš„è£å®šã€‚从新民事诉讼法第154æ¡æ˜Žç¡®è§„定适用è£å®šçš„事项æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œä¸»è¦æœ‰ä»¥ä¸‹æƒ…形：①ä¸äºˆå—ç†ï¼›â‘¡å¯¹ç®¡è¾–æƒæœ‰å¼‚议的；③驳回起诉；④ä¿å…¨å’Œå…ˆäºˆæ‰§è¡Œï¼›â‘¤å‡†è®¸æˆ–者ä¸å‡†è®¸æ’¤è¯‰ï¼›â‘¥ä¸æ¢æˆ–者终结诉讼；⑦补æ£åˆ¤å†³ä¹¦ä¸çš„笔误；⑧ä¸æ¢æˆ–者终结执行；⑨撤销或者ä¸äºˆæ‰§è¡Œä»²è£è£å†³ï¼›â‘©ä¸äºˆæ‰§è¡Œå…¬è¯æœºå…³èµ‹äºˆå¼ºåˆ¶æ‰§è¡Œæ•ˆåŠ›çš„债æƒæ–‡ä¹¦ã€‚虽然在民事诉讼ä¸ä¸åªæ˜¯ä¸Šè¿°äº‹é¡¹é€‚用è£å®šï¼Œä½†è‡³å°‘上述事项必须使用è£å®šï¼ŒåŒæ—¶ä¹Ÿè¡¨æ˜Žè¿™äº›äº‹é¡¹çš„é‡è¦æ€§ã€‚所以，首先è¦è®¨è®ºçš„是，这些è£å®šä¸å“ªäº›å¯ä»¥ä½œä¸ºç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体。由于第三人撤销之诉主è¦æ˜¯å¯¹å®žä½“æƒåˆ©çš„æ•‘æµŽï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå¦‚上述è£å®šä¸å…³äºŽä»–人之间诉讼系属ä¸æ³•é™¢å¯¹ä¸äºˆå—ç†ã€ç®¡è¾–æƒå¼‚è®®ã€é©³å›žèµ·è¯‰ã€ä¸æ¢ä¸Žç»ˆç»“诉讼ã€ä¸æ¢ä¸Žç»ˆç»“执行ã€è¯‰è®¼ä¿å…¨ã€å…ˆäºŽæ‰§è¡Œã€è¡¥æ£åˆ¤å†³ä¹¦ä¸çš„笔误ç‰äº‹é¡¹æ‰€ä½œçš„è£å®šéƒ½æ²¡æœ‰å¿…è¦ä½œä¸ºæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体。从民事诉讼法明确规定的è£å®šé€‚用〔9〕德日判决效力ç†è®ºä¸ï¼Œæ‰€è°“判决的ç¾æŸåŠ›ï¼Œæ˜¯æŒ‡åˆ¤å†³ä¸€ç»å®£å‘Šæˆ–é€è¾¾ï¼Œä¾¿å‘生对法院的约æŸåŠ›ï¼Œé™¤éžé€šè¿‡æ•‘济程åºï¼Œå¦‚上诉或å†å®¡ï¼Œæ³•é™¢ä¸èƒ½æ”¹å˜ã€‚与判决的既判力ä¸åŒï¼Œç¾æŸåŠ›å‘ç”Ÿæ— éœ€ä»¥åˆ¤å†³ç¡®å®šä¸ºå‰æ。
〔〕关于调解书，一个å¯ä»¥è¿›æ¥æ€è€ƒçš„问题是：当他人之间的调解åè®®åœ¨æ•ˆåŠ›ä¸Šå°†æ‰©å¼ åˆ°ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ—¶ï¼Œæ˜¯å¦è¿˜å¯ä»¥å…许进行调解，如果ä¸èƒ½è°ƒè§£ï¼Œè°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„法律效力在主体上åˆå…·æœ‰ç›¸å¯¹æ€§æ—¶ï¼Œè°ƒè§£ä¹¦æ˜¯å¦è¿˜åº”纳入å¯æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体范围就值得æ€è€ƒäº†ã€‚
范围æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œæ¶‰åŠæ°‘事实体æƒåˆ©çš„è£å®šå¹¶ä¸å¤šï¼Œä¸»è¦æœ‰ï¼šâ‘ 关于财产ä¿å…¨ï¼ˆåŒ…括诉å‰åŠè¯‰ä¸è´¢äº§ä¿å…¨ï¼‰çš„è£å®šï¼›â‘¡å…³äºŽè¡Œä¸ºä¿å…¨çš„è£å®šï¼›ã€”1〕②关于先于执行的è£å®šç‰ã€‚由于å¦å®šæ€§è£å®šäº§ç”Ÿçš„效果是使æŸäº›ç¨‹åºä¸èƒ½å‘生或继ç»ï¼Œå¦‚ä¸äºˆå—ç†ã€é©³å›žèµ·è¯‰ã€ä¸æ¢ä¸Žç»ˆç»“诉讼ã€ä¸æ¢ä¸Žç»ˆç»“执行ã€æ’¤é”€æˆ–者ä¸äºˆæ‰§è¡Œä»²è£è£å†³ã€ä¸äºˆæ‰§è¡Œå…¬è¯æœºå…³èµ‹äºˆå¼ºåˆ¶æ‰§è¡Œæ•ˆåŠ›çš„债æƒæ–‡ä¹¦ç‰ï¼Œè¿™äº›è£å®šå³ä½¿æ˜¯é”™è¯¯çš„，也ä¸ä¼šå‘生侵害第三人民事æƒç›Šçš„ç»“æžœï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œä¹Ÿæ— 需纳入撤销之诉的客体。
其二，有必è¦é€šè¿‡ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰äºˆä»¥æ’¤é”€çš„è£å®šã€‚è¿™æ€è·¯æ˜¯ä»Žç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„诉的利益角度æ¥è¿›è¡Œåˆ†æžã€‚虽然有些错误的生效è£å®šä¼šä¾µå®³ç¬¬ä¸‰äººçš„åˆæ³•æƒç›Šï¼Œä½†å´æ²¡æœ‰å¿…è¦é€šè¿‡æ起第三人撤销之诉予以撤销。例如，关于财产ä¿å…¨çš„è£å®šï¼Œå¦‚果有错误，一定是没有满足关于财产ä¿å…¨çš„æ¡ä»¶ï¼Œå¦‚将第三人的财产进行ä¿å…¨ã€‚æ— è®ºä½•ç§æƒ…形下的财产ä¿å…¨é”™è¯¯éƒ½å¯ä»¥è¦æ±‚实施ä¿å…¨æŽªæ–½çš„法院撤销关于该财产ä¿å…¨çš„è£å®šï¼Œè€Œä¸æ˜¯åƒåˆ¤å†³ã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦é‚£æ ·å¿…须通过特殊救济程åºäºˆä»¥æ’¤é”€ã€‚从è£å®šæ•ˆåŠ›çš„ç†è®ºä¸Šè®²ï¼Œæ³•é™¢ï¼ˆåŒ…括上级法院）ä¸èƒ½æ’¤é”€çš„è£å®šï¼Œæ˜¯é‚£äº›å…·æœ‰ç¾æŸåŠ›ã€”2〕和既判力的è£å®šã€‚〔3〕从我国的情形æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œè£å®šä¸€èˆ¬æ˜¯å¯¹ç¨‹åºæ€§é—®é¢˜çš„è£å†³ï¼Œå› æ¤è¿™äº›è£å®šæ˜¯æ²¡æœ‰ç¾æŸåŠ›å’Œæ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›çš„。åªæœ‰é‚£äº›æ¶‰åŠå®žä½“处ç†ï¼ˆä¸Žæ¶‰åŠå®žä½“æƒåˆ©ä¹‰åŠ¡ä¸åŒï¼Œæ˜¯ç›´æŽ¥å…³äºŽå®žä½“æƒåˆ©ä¹‰åŠ¡çš„处ç†ï¼‰çš„è£å®šæ‰å…·æœ‰æ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›ã€‚例如关于支付令的è£å®šä»¥åŠå…³äºŽè¯‰è®¼è´¹ç”¨çš„è£å®šç‰ã€‚从民事诉讼法所规定的è£å®šæ¥çœ‹ï¼Œè¿™äº›è£å®šä¼¼ä¹Žéƒ½æ˜¯ç¨‹åºäº‹é¡¹çš„è£å®šï¼Œæ²¡æœ‰æ¶‰åŠå®žä½“处ç†çš„è£å®šã€‚有涉åŠå®žä½“处ç†çš„，如关于支付令和诉讼费用，åˆä¸ä½¿ç”¨è£å®šã€‚支付令本身是一ç§æ³•é™¢å‘½ä»¤ä½œä¸ºçš„æ–¹å¼ï¼Œå…³äºŽè¯‰è®¼è´¹ç”¨çš„处ç†é‡‡ç”¨çš„是è£åˆ¤æ–¹å¼å†³å®šï¼Œå› æ¤ä¹Ÿéƒ½ä¸èƒ½æž„æˆç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„è£å®šã€‚由于对程åºäº‹é¡¹æ‰€ä½œçš„è£å®šæ²¡æœ‰ç¾æŸåŠ›å’Œæ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå¯¹äºŽé”™è¯¯çš„è£å®šï¼Œç¬¬ä¸‰äººå¯ä»¥è¯·æ±‚法院予以撤销或改å˜ï¼ˆæ³•é™¢ä¹Ÿå¯ä»¥ä¾èŒæƒæ’¤é”€æˆ–改å˜ï¼‰ï¼Œè€Œæ— 需通过诉的方å¼äºˆä»¥æ’¤é”€ã€‚3从上述两点分æžæ¥çœ‹ï¼Œä¼¼ä¹Žæ²¡æœ‰ä»€ä¹ˆè£å®šå¯ä»¥çº³å…¥å¯æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体范围。这也许是为什么在法国和我国å°æ¹¾åœ°åŒºä¸å°†è£å®šçº³å…¥æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„å®¢ä½“çš„åŽŸå› ä¹‹ä¸€ã€‚ä¸è¿‡ï¼Œä¸Šè¿°åˆ†æžæ˜¯ä»Žè§„范使用è£å®šçš„角度，是一ç§çº¸é¢ä¸Šçš„分æžï¼Œå®žè·µä¸æœ‰å¯èƒ½å‡ºçŽ°ä¸è§„范适用è£å®šçš„情形（是å¦æœ‰è¿™æ ·ä¸€ç§å¯èƒ½ï¼Œè£åˆ¤çš„å½¢å¼æ˜¯è£å®šï¼Œä½†å®žè´¨å´æ˜¯åˆ¤å†³çš„情形。这里涉åŠçš„问题是法律规定的è£å®šæ˜¯å®žè´¨æ„义上的还是形å¼æ„义上的），这些情形有å¯èƒ½æˆä¸ºæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体，就这一角度〔1〕2012年民事诉讼法对ä¿å…¨åˆ¶åº¦è¿›è¡Œäº†ä¿®æ”¹ï¼Œæ–°æ³•è§„å®šï¼Œæ ¹æ®å¯¹æ–¹å½“事人的申请，å¯ä»¥è£å®šå¯¹å…¶è´¢äº§è¿›è¡Œä¿å…¨ã€è´£ä»¤å…¶ä½œå‡ºä¸€å®šè¡Œä¸ºæˆ–者ç¦æ¢å…¶ä½œå‡ºä¸€å®šè¡Œä¸ºã€‚（民事诉讼法第100æ¡ï¼‰ã€”2〕è£åˆ¤ï¼ˆåˆ¤å†³å’Œè£å®šï¼‰çš„ç¾æŸåŠ›æ˜¯æŒ‡ï¼Œä¸€æ—¦è£åˆ¤æˆç«‹ï¼Œå³å¯¹æ³•é™¢äº§ç”Ÿä¸å¯æ”¹å˜å’Œæ’¤é”€çš„约æŸåŠ›ï¼Œæ— 论是作出è£åˆ¤çš„法院还是上级法院，除éžé€šè¿‡ä¸“门程åºã€‚与既判力ä¸åŒï¼Œç¾æŸåŠ›çš„产生并ä¸è¦æ±‚è£åˆ¤ç¡®å®šã€‚è£åˆ¤ä¸€æ—¦ç¡®å®šå³å‘生既判力。既判力的作用在于约æŸåŽè¯‰æ³•é™¢ä¸å¾—作出与å‰è¯‰è£åˆ¤çŸ›ç›¾çš„è£åˆ¤ï¼Œå½“事人ä¸å¾—就已ç»è£åˆ¤çš„事项å†è¡Œäº‰æ‰§ã€‚关于ç¾æŸåŠ›å’Œæ—¢åˆ¤åŠ›ï¼Œè¯¦è§å¼ å«å¹³ï¼šã€Šæ°‘事诉讼：展开》，ä¸å›½äººæ°‘大å¦å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾ã€”3〕å‚è§é™ˆè£å®—ã€æž—庆苗：《民事诉讼法》，三民书局股份有é™å…¬å¸2005年版，页576ã€577.〔4〕国内也有å¦è€…认为，一旦è£å®šç”Ÿæ•ˆï¼Œéžç»æ³•å®šç¨‹åºï¼Œæ³•é™¢ä¹Ÿä¸å¾—改å˜ã€‚å‚è§å¼ å«å¹³ã€æŽæµ©ï¼šæ–°æ°‘事诉讼法原ç†ä¸Žé€‚用》，人民法院出版社2012年版，页314.而言，民事诉讼法的规定也并éžå®Œå…¨æ²¡æœ‰æ„义。
五ã€ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰æ起的程åºåŠè£åˆ¤æ ¹æ®æ°‘事诉讼法第56æ¡ç¬¬3款的规定，案外第三人å¯ä»¥è‡ªçŸ¥é“或者应当知é“其民事æƒç›Šå—到æŸå®³ä¹‹æ—¥èµ·å…个月内，å‘作出该判决ã€è£å®šã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„人民法院æ起诉讼。民事诉讼法并没有规定知é“或应当知é“的最长时é™ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œä¸è®ºç»è¿‡å¤šé•¿æ—¶é—´ï¼Œåªè¦æ˜¯åœ¨çŸ¥é“或应当知é“çš„å…个月以内，都å¯ä»¥è¡Œä½¿èµ·è¯‰æƒã€‚关于行使撤销之诉的诉æƒæœŸé™ä¸Žæ°‘事诉讼法关于å†å®¡ç”³è¯·çš„期间的规定ä¿æŒäº†ä¸€è‡´ã€‚这也说明，第三人撤销之诉在救济手段的性质上属于特殊或éžå¸¸æ•‘济手段。
第三人撤销之诉的管辖法院是作出判决ã€è£å®šå’Œè°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„法院。如果è¦æ±‚撤销的è£åˆ¤æ˜¯å®¡æ³•é™¢ï¼Œåˆ™ç®¡è¾–法院就是该一审法院；如果è¦æ±‚撤销的è£åˆ¤æ˜¯ç¬¬äºŒå®¡æ³•é™¢ä½œå‡ºçš„，则管辖法院就是第二审法院。
（二）第三人撤销之诉的审查和å—ç†ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€åˆ¶åº¦çš„审查和å—ç†çš„问题，主è¦æ¶‰åŠå¯¹äºŽè¯¥è¯‰æ˜¯æŒ‰ç…§èˆ¬çš„诉讼对待，还是按照特殊救济的诉讼对待的问题。如果按照一般的诉讼，则法院åªéœ€è¦å¯¹è¯‰çš„æ起进行形å¼å®¡æŸ¥è€Œéžå®žè´¨å®¡æŸ¥ã€‚例如，关于诉讼æèµ·çš„ç†ç”±æ˜¯æ— 需进行实质审查，也ä¸éœ€è¦å½“äº‹äººåŠ ä»¥è¯æ˜Žã€‚相å，特殊救济诉讼的å¯åŠ¨åˆ™éœ€è¦å¯¹è¯‰è®¼æ起的事由，如原判决ã€è£å®šã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦å˜åœ¨é”™è¯¯ï¼Œè¿›è¡Œå®žè´¨æ€§å®¡æŸ¥ã€‚对于事由的å˜åœ¨æ˜¯å¦åº”达到较大å¯èƒ½æ€§çš„程度，ä¸èƒ½ç”¨å†å®¡åˆ¶åº¦ä¸çš„“确有错误â€åŠ 以è¦æ±‚。
法院对第三人申请è£åˆ¤å’Œè°ƒè§£çš„请求，ç»å®¡ç†ä¹‹åŽï¼Œä½œå‡ºå¦å®šæ€§æˆ–肯定性è£åˆ¤ã€‚认为诉讼请求ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹çš„，判决驳回诉讼请求；认为诉讼请求æˆç«‹çš„，应当改å˜æˆ–者撤销原判决ã€è£å®šã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ã€‚
改å˜åŽŸåˆ¤å†³ã€è£å®šã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ï¼Œæ˜¯æŒ‡ä¸å®Œå…¨å¦å®šåŽŸè£åˆ¤å’Œè°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„å†…å®¹ï¼Œä»…ä»…å°†é”™è¯¯çš„éƒ¨åˆ†äºˆä»¥çº æ£ã€‚例如，在原判决ä¸å°†æœ¬å±žäºŽç¬¬ä¸‰äººçš„财产错误地认定为原告诉讼请求的财产之ä¸ï¼Œå¹¶ç»ˆå±€åˆ¤å†³è¯¥è´¢äº§å±žäºŽäº‰è®®è´¢äº§çš„部分。在æ¤ç§æƒ…形下，ç»å®¡ç†è®¤ä¸ºè¯¥è´¢äº§åº”属于第三人的，就è¦æ”¹å˜åŽŸåˆ¤å†³ä¸æ¶‰åŠç¬¬ä¸‰äººè´¢äº§çš„判决部分。应当注æ„çš„æ˜¯ï¼Œæ— è®ºæ˜¯æ’¤é”€è¿˜æ˜¯æ”¹å˜åŽŸè£åˆ¤ï¼Œåœ¨è£åˆ¤çš„å½¢å¼ä¸Šï¼Œæ’¤é”€æˆ–改å˜åŽŸåˆ¤å†³ã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„é€‚ç”¨åˆ¤å†³ï¼Œå› ä¸ºä¸ç®¡æ˜¯æ’¤é”€è¿˜æ˜¯æ”¹å˜åˆ¤å†³æˆ–调解书，都是对原判决ã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦æ‰€æ¶‰å®žä½“æƒåˆ©ä¹‰åŠ¡çš„è£åˆ¤ã€‚在è£åˆ¤çš„法ç†ä¸Šï¼Œè¦æ±‚对实体问题的终局性è£å†³ä½¿ç”¨åˆ¤å†³ã€‚
按照新民事诉讼法的规定，第三人撤销之诉的诉讼请求ä¸æˆç«‹çš„ï¼Œåˆ¤å†³é©³å›žã€‚è¿™é‡Œæ²¡æœ‰åŒºåˆ†æ’¤é”€çš„å®¢ä½“ï¼Œæ— è®ºæ˜¯åˆ¤å†³ã€è£å®šè¿˜æ˜¯è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ã€‚从对诉讼请求的处ç†æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œä½¿ç”¨åˆ¤å†³æ˜¯å¯ä»¥æˆç«‹çš„。一个åŠè¯¡ä¹‹å¤„是，既然是对一ç§è¯‰è®¼è¯·æ±‚çš„è£åˆ¤ï¼Œä½†å´æ˜¯é’ˆå¯¹è£å®šçš„，而è£å†³çš„æ–¹å¼åˆæ˜¯åˆ¤å†³ï¼Œè¿™æ€»ä½¿äººæ„Ÿè§‰æœ‰äº›å¼‚æ ·ã€‚å› ä¸ºå¦‚æžœæ˜¯æ’¤é”€æˆ–æ”¹å˜è£å®šçš„情形，想必从规定的逻辑而言，似乎也应该用判决。比较一下å†å®¡å®¡ç†è£åˆ¤çš„情形，应该比较清楚这ä¸é—´çš„å¼‚æ ·ä¹‹å¤„äº†ã€‚
对于å¯å†å®¡çš„è£å®šï¼Œå¦‚ä¸äºˆå—ç†ã€é©³å›žèµ·è¯‰ç‰çš„è£å®šï¼Œå†å®¡å®¡ç†åŽä¸è®ºé©³å›žå†å®¡è¯·æ±‚，还是撤销原è£å®šï¼Œä½¿ç”¨çš„è£åˆ¤æ–¹å¼éƒ½æ˜¯è£å®šè€Œéžåˆ¤å†³ã€‚对于这ç§å¤„ç†æ–¹å¼ï¼Œä¸€ç§è§£é‡Šæ˜¯å› 为原è£å®šæœ¬èº«æ˜¯é’ˆå¯¹ç¨‹åºé—®é¢˜çš„ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå¯¹ç¨‹åºé—®é¢˜çš„处ç†ä¹Ÿåº”当用è£å®šã€‚ä»¥è¿™æ ·çš„è§‚ç‚¹æ¥çœ‹å¾…第三人撤销之诉，则第三人撤销之诉请求撤销的客体是è£å®šæ—¶ï¼Œåœ¨è£åˆ¤çš„处ç†ä¸Šä¹Ÿåº”当用è£å®šæ‰æ˜¯ã€‚但这显然åˆä¸Žå¯¹ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰è¯‰è®¼è¯·æ±‚的实体处ç†é¡»ç”¨åˆ¤å†³ä¸è‡´ã€‚这也许就是将è£å®šçº³å…¥æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„客体所带æ¥é—®é¢˜ã€‚
原判决ã€è£å®šè¢«æ’¤é”€ä¹‹åŽï¼Œå°±åªå˜åœ¨å®¡ç†æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„法院作出的撤销判决。在改å˜åˆ¤å†³çš„场åˆï¼Œå½“法院改å˜åŽŸåˆ¤å†³ä¹‹åŽï¼ŒåŽŸæ¥çš„判决也ä¸å†å˜åœ¨ï¼Œå®¡ç†æ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„法院是以新的形æˆåˆ¤å†³æ›¿ä»£äº†åŽŸåˆ¤å†³ã€‚这与上诉法院对第审法院判决的改判是åŒæ ·çš„情形。
这里需è¦æ³¨æ„的是，第三人撤销之诉的审ç†èŒƒå›´åº”当仅é™äºŽç¬¬ä¸‰äººè¯·æ±‚撤销的部分，ç†ç”±æ˜¯åŸºäºŽæ°‘事诉讼处分原则的è¦æ±‚。å¦ä¸ªé—®é¢˜æ˜¯ï¼Œç»å®¡ç†è™½ç„¶ç¬¬ä¸‰äººçš„撤销请求ä¸èƒ½æˆç«‹ï¼Œä½†å‘现他人之间的判决ã€è£å®šå’Œè°ƒè§£ä¹¦æœ‰é”™è¯¯æ—¶ï¼Œæ˜¯å¦åº”当主动ä¾èŒæƒäºˆä»¥æ’¤é”€ï¼Œç¬”者认为，基于民事诉讼处分原则，法院åŒæ ·ä¹Ÿä¸èƒ½æ’¤é”€ã€‚ç”±æ¤ï¼Œæˆ‘们也å¯ä»¥çœ‹å‡ºå¤„分原则对于规范审判行为的é‡è¦æ„义。
å•çº¯æ’¤é”€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ç”¨åˆ¤å†³çš„æ–¹å¼ï¼ŒåŒæ ·ä¹ŸåŸºäºŽæ˜¯å¯¹è¯·æ±‚撤销调解书请求的实体处ç†ã€‚对于改å˜åŽŸè°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„情形，å¯ä»¥æœ‰ä¸¤ç§æ€è·¯ï¼šå…¶ï¼Œæ³•é™¢ä»¥åˆ¤å†³çš„å½¢å¼ç›´æŽ¥æ”¹å˜åŽŸè°ƒè§£ä¹¦çš„内容；其二，法院首先用è£å®šæ’¤é”€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ï¼Œç„¶åŽç”±åŽŸè°ƒè§£çš„åŒæ–¹å½“事人达æˆæ–°çš„调解å议，法院å†æ ¹æ®æ–°çš„调解å议制作新的调解书。笔者比较认åŒåŽä¸€ç§æ€è·¯ã€‚
å…ã€ç»“æŸè¯æœ¬æ–‡å…³äºŽç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰åˆ¶åº¦çš„æž„æˆåŠè¿ç”¨çš„分æžæ˜¯åŸºäºŽè§„范分æžçš„视角，从民事诉讼的ç†è®ºå’Œé€»è¾‘æŽ¨æ¼”ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå¾ˆéš¾é¢„测该制度è¿ç”¨å½“ä¸å¯èƒ½å‘生的问题，这就åªæœ‰é’ˆå¯¹å…·ä½“æƒ…å½¢ï¼Œæ ¹æ®ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰åˆ¶åº¦çš„目的和精神予以处ç†ã€‚å¯ä»¥æƒ³è±¡çš„是，由于第三人撤销之诉å¯èƒ½é¢ 覆原有的判决ã€è£å®šã€è°ƒè§£ä¹¦ï¼Œå¯¼è‡´åŽŸæœ‰çš„既决事项å‘生改å˜ï¼Œå› æ¤ï¼Œå¦‚何防æ¢æ»¥ç”¨ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰æ怕是实践ä¸éœ€è¦æ³¨æ„的首è¦é—®é¢˜ï¼Œä»¥å…è¿›æ¥å½±å“è£åˆ¤çš„安定性。å¦å¤–，è¦ä½¿ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰è¿™ä¸€åˆ¶åº¦åˆç†è¿è¡Œï¼Œè¿˜éœ€è¦ç›¸åº”çš„é…套制度和措施。例如，进一æ¥å®Œå–„第三人诉讼å‚åŠ çš„é€šçŸ¥åˆ¶åº¦ï¼Œä½¿ç¬¬ä¸‰äººå°½å¯èƒ½é€šè¿‡äº‹å‰ç¨‹åºç»´æŠ¤è‡ªå·±çš„æƒåˆ©ï¼Œå‡å°‘事åŽç¨‹åºçš„使用，以实现诉讼ç»æµŽæ€§å’Œè£åˆ¤å®‰å®šæ€§è¦æ±‚。作为细化民事诉讼法规定的å¸æ³•è§£é‡Šï¼Œåœ¨ä¿è¯åˆç†è¿ç”¨ç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰æ–¹é¢è¿˜æœ‰è®¸å¤šå·¥ä½œè¦åšã€‚å› æ¤ï¼Œå…³äºŽç¬¬ä¸‰äººæ’¤é”€ä¹‹è¯‰çš„ç†è®ºæŽ¢ç´¢è¿˜åˆšåˆšå±•å¼€ï¼Œç¬”者期待对æ¤ç ”究的ä¸æ–深入。
（责任编辑：傅éƒæž—）
Wheel Loader is a kind of earth shovel transportation machinery widely used in roads, railways, ports, docks, coal, mines, water conservancy, national defense and other projects and urban construction. It plays an important role in reducing labor intensity, speeding up project construction, and improving project quality.
Wheel Loaders,Small Wheel Loader,Front End Loaders,‎Tractor Front Loaders
Shandong Davoo Machinery Co., Ltd. Trading Company , https://www.nbsddigger.com