【摘要】：再審程序是對(duì)確定判決進(jìn)行再審理，大多數(shù)人將再審程序?qū)τ屑扰辛Φ呐袥Q再審理視為理所當(dāng)然，而如果深究便會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)兩者的悖論。確定判決存在著既判力，法院及當(dāng)事人均受到既判力的拘束，不得聲明不服，不得再為審理。因此，對(duì)確定判決進(jìn)行再審，勢(shì)必要解除原判決既判力的拘束，但是根據(jù)目前大陸法系各個(gè)國(guó)家地區(qū)的立法現(xiàn)狀，原判決的撤銷是在作出再審裁判時(shí)一并作出的。本文將解釋為何再審可以對(duì)有既判力的確定判決進(jìn)行再審理。如何解除確定判決的既判力，再審程序存在三個(gè)階段，既判力的解除到底是在哪個(gè)階段，將是論述的重點(diǎn)。 第一部分，既判力與再審的概述。簡(jiǎn)要介紹既判力的積極作用和消極作用，，再審的程序構(gòu)造及再審之訴的訴訟標(biāo)的，指明本文所支持的觀點(diǎn)，為后文進(jìn)一步論述做鋪墊。 第二部分，再審事由與原判決既判力正當(dāng)性的關(guān)系。德國(guó)法上將再審事由分成無(wú)效事由和回復(fù)原狀事由，本文從再審事由的分類角度，比較研究再審事由對(duì)原判決既判力正當(dāng)性的影響的有關(guān)學(xué)說(shuō)，從而得出為何可以對(duì)存在既判力的原判決進(jìn)行再審理。認(rèn)定再審事由并不意味著撤銷原判決，因?yàn)樵賹徥掠傻拇嬖谡f(shuō)明原確定判決存在程序上或?qū)嶓w上的瑕疵，有損其既判力的正當(dāng)性。再審事由對(duì)原判決既判力的正當(dāng)性是直接否定還是降低其價(jià)值，須根據(jù)再審事由的分類進(jìn)行判斷。無(wú)效事由直接否定原判決既判力的正當(dāng)性，原判決溯及性的無(wú)效。存在回復(fù)原狀事由的原判決可以通過(guò)解除既判力的消極作用，使得當(dāng)事人可以再次爭(zhēng)取正當(dāng)權(quán)益，法官可以再次受理爭(zhēng)議。從而得出再審事由在再審程序中的起到再審理事由的作用。 第三部分，再審理階段原判決既判力的狀態(tài)。法院認(rèn)定存在再審事由，從而進(jìn)入本案再審理階段，那么此時(shí)原判決既判力是處于何種狀態(tài)，有效還是無(wú)效，日本學(xué)界存在著效力暫定說(shuō)和效力確定說(shuō)。這兩種學(xué)說(shuō)觀點(diǎn)與再審事由的作用、再審之訴的訴訟標(biāo)的問(wèn)題存在著重要關(guān)系。本文從再審事由審理階段對(duì)原判決既判力的形成性影響角度切入，提出存在無(wú)效事由的原判決既判力處于無(wú)效狀態(tài)，而回復(fù)原狀事由的原判決只有審查認(rèn)定該事由與原判決既判力的不當(dāng)存在因果關(guān)系時(shí)，才能撤銷原判決，即解除原判決既判力的積極作用。 第四部分，我國(guó)的再審與原判決既判力的現(xiàn)狀及協(xié)調(diào)。由于我國(guó)的再審制度與大陸法系的再審之訴不同，我國(guó)的再審程序啟動(dòng)主體有三類，即檢察院、法院及當(dāng)事人。本文分別三類主體對(duì)我國(guó)的再審程序構(gòu)造、再審事由以及具體程序與原判決既判力的處理存在的問(wèn)題提出完善建議。
[Abstract]:The retrial procedure is to rehear the certain judgment. Most people take the retrial procedure as a matter of course for the res judicata judgment, but if we go deep into it, we will find the paradox between the two. The court and the parties are bound by res judicata. Therefore, it is necessary to release the jus judicata of the original judgment, but according to the current legislative situation of various countries in the civil law system, the revocation of the original judgment was made at the same time when the retrial decision was made. This article will explain why a retrial can rehear a definitive decision with res judicata. There are three stages in the procedure of retrial. The first part, the summary of res judicata and retrial. This paper briefly introduces the positive and negative effects of res judicata, the procedural structure of retrial and the litigation object of retrial, and points out the viewpoints supported in this paper, which will pave the way for further discussion. The second part, the relationship between the reason of retrial and the validity of res judicata. The German law divides the retrial cause into invalid cause and restitution reason. From the classification of retrial reasons, this paper compares and studies the influence of retrial cause on the validity of the res judicata of the original judgment. So we can find out why the original judgment with res judicata can be tried again. Finding the reason of retrial does not mean rescission of the original judgment, because the existence of the reason of retrial indicates that the original judgment has defects in procedure or substance, which impairs the legitimacy of its res judicata. Whether the justification of the res judicata of the original judgment is directly negated or reduced by the reason of retrial should be judged according to the classification of the reason of retrial. The reason of invalidity directly negates the validity of the res judicata of the original judgment and the invalidity of the retroactivity of the original judgment. The existence of the original judgment in reply to the original situation can relieve the negative effect of res judicata, so that the parties can fight for the legitimate rights and interests again, and the judge can accept the dispute again. So that the retrial cause in the retrial proceedings play the role of retrial reason. The third part, the state of res judicata in the stage of retrial. The court found that there is a reason for retrial, thus entering the stage of retrial of the case, so at this time whether the res judicata of the original judgment is in what state, effective or invalid, there is a tentative theory of validity and a theory of determination of validity in Japanese academic circles. There is an important relationship between these two views and the cause of retrial and the subject matter of retrial action. From the point of view of the formative influence of the retrial trial on the res judicata of the original judgment, the author puts forward that the res judicata of the original judgment with invalid reasons is in an invalid state. Only when the original judgment of reply to the original circumstances determines that there is a causal relationship between the reason and the res judicata, can the original judgment be revoked, that is, the positive effect of the original judgment on res judicata. The fourth part, our country's retrial and the original judgment res judicata present situation and the coordination. Because the retrial system of our country is different from that of the civil law system, there are three kinds of subjects to start the retrial procedure in our country, that is, the procuratorate, the court and the parties concerned. This paper puts forward some suggestions on the construction of retrial procedure, the cause of retrial and the problems in dealing with the res judicata of the specific procedure and the original judgment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 李浩;;構(gòu)建再審之訴的三個(gè)程序設(shè)計(jì)[J];法商研究;2006年04期

2 齊樹潔;;再審程序的完善與既判力之維護(hù)[J];法學(xué)家;2007年06期

3 譚振波;既判力理論與我國(guó)民事訴訟法中審判監(jiān)督程序的沖突及解決途徑[J];河北法學(xué);2003年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 崔玲玲;訴的類型研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：2221986