本文選題：爭議焦點 + 爭點效�。� 參考：《南京大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：訴訟標的為當事人攻擊防御目標,并為法院審理裁判對象,故傳統(tǒng)民事訴訟理論將既判力范圍限定為裁判主文判斷,裁判理由部分不被賦予裁判效力。成為當事人爭議焦點的事實的判斷,倘若對后訴有一定的約束力,本文簡稱為"爭議焦點效力"。承認這一點對于預防矛盾裁判、促進訴訟經(jīng)濟、彌補傳統(tǒng)既判力理論不足有重要的理論與實踐價值。英美及大陸法系分別以"爭點排除效"和"事實證明效"處理爭議焦點判斷效力。我國最高法院以司法解釋方式確立"預決效力規(guī)則"解決該裁判理由效力。但該規(guī)則理論基礎不明,適用范圍不限于對爭議焦點的判斷,模糊事實證明規(guī)則與裁判效力規(guī)則,其正當性存在很大爭議,無助于我國裁判效力制度發(fā)展。本文認為有必要通過比較法的功能比較方式,提煉出背后制約爭議焦點效力因素(本文稱為爭議焦點程序保障群)。通過對照我國圍繞爭議焦點程序保障,重新闡釋我國爭議焦點判斷效力規(guī)則。第一部分通過梳理我國既有文本規(guī)范和既有研究,指出既有成果在研究方法之不足,以提煉出本文的核心問題并闡述本文論證思路。我國當前圍繞爭議焦點和預決條款之間關系研究存在缺乏實踐樣本分析、理論體系整合等缺憾。本文擬以代表性裁判文書為分析樣本,檢討預決效力條款實施現(xiàn)狀,通過制度生成史批判現(xiàn)行預決效力條款"不合時宜性",試圖解析爭議焦點判斷效力背后制約因素,以重新闡釋我國爭議焦點判斷效力規(guī)則。第二部分檢討我國爭議焦點效力實踐現(xiàn)狀及所引發(fā)弊端。本文將檢索到的232份裁判文書分組歸類,并以23份代表性裁判文書作為分析樣本。實踐中多援引預決效力條款作為爭議焦點效力適用依據(jù),但在效力本質、規(guī)制范圍等層面理解存有差異。該種操作方式將造成證明制度和裁判效力制度混淆、預決效力相對性過度泛化、訴訟突襲、加重對方當事人舉證責任等種種流弊。第三部分是分析我國預決效力條款在現(xiàn)行立法框架中"不合時宜性"問題。預決效力條款法理基礎存在擬制真實說及客觀真實說爭議,并且兩種學說旗鼓相當。該現(xiàn)狀不僅直接反映在對裁判效力理解層面,也間接地反映在最高人民法院官方前后不一態(tài)度上。預決效力條款移植于前蘇聯(lián),隨著我國社會經(jīng)濟制度的轉型,國家集權形式已經(jīng)無法適應現(xiàn)代社會管理模式,必然向回應性國家和糾紛解決型司法程序轉型。因此,前蘇聯(lián)建構預決效力條款時所特有的審判職能、社會意識形態(tài)、程序目標等語境,在我國當前的司法環(huán)境中儼然已經(jīng)被置換。第四部分是介紹不同爭議焦點效力選擇進路,探尋其背后共同法理基礎并分析背后制約因素。英美法系采取"爭點排除效",大陸法系的既判力遮斷效具備同樣功能,而晚近日本以及我國臺灣地區(qū)理論則逐漸轉向承認其有裁判效力。本文提出應當將該程序保障群解析為爭議焦點整理程度、法官釋明程度、爭議焦點判斷復審程度及特別救濟程度等。第五部分是將上述制約因素同我國現(xiàn)行制度進行對照。經(jīng)對照,我國爭議焦點整理程序無規(guī)則、法官釋明權制度未規(guī)范、爭議焦點判斷普通救濟渠道被架空、爭議焦點判斷特別救濟渠道不通暢。我國除了改革目標中的爭議焦點復審程度可同美國、德國相比擬以外,其余要素均無法同其相提并論;而以上程序保障因素的缺陷即不足以支撐爭點效制度引進。第六部分則是本文試圖利用現(xiàn)行制度,通過解釋論重構我國爭議焦點效力規(guī)則。認為我國裁判文書在判決理由部分爭議焦點判斷應當適用公文書證明規(guī)則,但僅具備形式證明力,而不具備實質證明力。形式證明力為公文書經(jīng)推定直接產(chǎn)生;實質證明力則需法官自由心證判斷。然而,當特定訴訟政策價值需求足以超越爭議焦點程序保障時,應當在極端例外情形中承認爭議焦點判斷在后訴中拘束力,即被賦予遮斷效力。
[Abstract]:For the parties to attack the defense target and judge the referee for the court, the traditional civil procedure theory defines the scope of the res judicata as the judgment of the referee, and the part of the referee is not given the effect of the referee. It has important theoretical and practical values to prevent contradictory referees, promote litigation economy and make up for the deficiency of traditional res judicata theory. The Anglo American and continental law system, respectively, deal with the effectiveness of dispute focus by "disputing point elimination effect" and "fact proof effect". The Supreme Court of our country establishes the prejudicial rule by judicial interpretation. "To solve the justification of the referee, but the theoretical basis of the rule is unknown, the scope of application is not limited to the judgment of the focus of the dispute. The justification of the rules of fuzzy fact proof and the validity of the referee is very controversial, and it is not conducive to the development of the system of referee effectiveness in our country. This article holds that it is necessary to refine the back system through the comparative method of comparative law. The effect factor of the dispute focus (this article is called the procedural guarantee group of the focus of dispute). By comparing China's focus on the procedural protection of the dispute focus, it reinterprets the rule of judging the effectiveness of the dispute focus in our country. The first part, through combing the existing text standard and the existing research in our country, points out the shortcomings of the research methods of the existing fruits in order to extract the core of this article. At present, there is a lack of practical sample analysis and theoretical system integration in the study of the relationship between the focus of the dispute and the predetermined clause in our country. The present situation of the implementation of the predetermined validity clause is reviewed with the representative referee documents as the analysis sample, and the current predetermined validity clause is criticized by the history of the system generation. In the second part, the second part reviews the current situation of the effectiveness of the dispute focus in China and the disadvantages. This paper classifies the 232 referee documents and uses 23 representative referee documents as the analysis samples. In practice, the provision of predetermined effectiveness is used as the basis for the application of the dispute focus, but there are differences in the understanding of the essence of the effectiveness and the scope of the regulation. This operation will cause confusion in the system of proof and the effectiveness of the referee, the overgeneralization of the relative predetermination effect, the raids of the litigation, and the aggravation of the other parties' burden of proof, and so on. The three part is the analysis of the "inopportune" issue in the current legislative framework of the predetermination effectiveness clause in China. The legal basis of the pre determination validity clause exists in the legal theory and the objective truth, and the two doctrines are quite equal. The present situation is not only directly reflected in the understanding of the effectiveness of the referee, but also indirectly reflected in the Supreme People's court officer. There is no attitude towards the former Soviet Union. With the transition of the former Soviet Union, with the transformation of the social and economic system in China, the form of national centralization has been unable to adapt to the modern social management model. It is bound to transform to the responsive state and dispute resolution judicial procedure. Therefore, the former Soviet Union constructs the prejudicial provisions of the trial function and society. The context of ideology and procedural goals has been replaced in the current judicial environment of our country. The fourth part is to introduce the choice approach of the effectiveness of different disputes, explore the common legal basis behind it and analyze the factors behind it. The Anglo American law system adopts the "dispute resolution effect", and the jurisdiction of the civil law system has the same function, In recent years, the theory of Taiwan area in Japan and China gradually turned to adjudication effectiveness. This paper proposed that the procedure guarantee group should be analyzed as the degree of disputed focus, the degree of judge's interpretation, the degree of review and the degree of special relief, and so on. The fifth part is to carry out the above-mentioned restrictive factors with the current system of our country. According to the contrast, the process of disputed focus in China is irregular, the judge's interpretation right system is not standardized, the focus of the dispute is judged to be the common remedy channel, and the focus of the dispute is unobstructed. The retrial degree of the focus of the dispute in our country can not be compared with that of the United States and Germany. In the sixth part, this article attempts to reconstruct our country's dispute focus effect rules by using the current system and reconstructs the rules of the dispute focus in our country by using the present system. Proof force does not have substantial proof. Formal proof is the direct production of official documents; substantive proof is required by the judge's free evidence. However, when the demand for specific litigation policy is sufficient to exceed the procedural guarantee of the dispute focus, it should be recognized in the extreme exceptions that the focus of the dispute should be determined in the post prosecution. Give off the effect.
【學位授予單位】：南京大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1
，

本文編號：1950612