On The Common Property Return Of Litigation

Communism is a state of ownership of things.It is a system of "property law" in our country and exists widely in life.In a rapidly developing market economy,the common people's rights to the common property are often infringed upon by a third party who has the right to sue in court for the right to be returned to the communal property.The concept of lawsuit for the return of the common property originated in Taiwan.In the practice of civil justice in mainland China,the lawsuit for the return of the common property is reflected in the case of restitution of the original object and the possession of the reply case.For the system of the return of the commonwealth,the substantive law of our country does not specify the exercising subject and mode of exercise of the right of return of the common property.From the current "Supreme People's Court on Applying <Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"(Collectively referred to as "Civil Interpretation")to find out the common litigation of this coping style is also a necessary common lawsuit,but such a provision has led to a series of problems,one is contrary to the intent of substantive law;the second is the procedure Law provides itself for the existence of the problem.In the common law return litigation,there are both the procedural law and the substantive law,which should redefine the litigation system of common property return in our country under the law of equalization.Therefore,this article focuses on the comparatively mature system design in other regions,and puts forward that our country should clarify the object of exercise of the right of return of the common property in the substantive law,establish similar necessary common lawsuit system on the procedural law,Under the full ex ante procedural safeguards,to expand the resjudicata,and to give relief to those unallocated co-owners who are not being blamed for their own affairs.This article does not include foreword and conclusion,the text covers four parts,a total of more than thirty thousand words.The language structure is as follows:The first part: Firstly,it outlines the concept of common and the common classification.After clarifying its basic definition,it further explores the common internal and external relations,and determines the unity of remedies for the return of commonwealth external relations,and the second is the definition of the common law return lawsuit.The concept of the return of commons and the right of return of commons was clearly positioned,laying the theoretical foundation for the analysis of the common return lawsuit form below.The second part: From the perspective of substantive law,there are ambiguities in the provisions of the Chinese law concerning the return of common property lawsuits,which leads to chaotic situations in the judicial practice.In addition,the procedural law in China adopts a common object to resolve disputes at one time.The return of lawsuits is qualitatively necessary for joint lawsuits,causing great disagreements in the academic world and practically difficult operational problems.Therefore,the author analyzes the problems existing in the Commonwealth Reimbursement Litigation System from three different perspectives: the substantive law,the procedural law,and the judicial practice.This leads to the following comparative analysis and improvement of common law return lawsuits.The third part: Analyze the comparative law of the system of restitution of goods,from the commonality of the parties,from the joint ownership to the joint ownership,and Germany,Japan,and Taiwan in China have gradually relaxed the provisions for the mutual prosecution of the joint proprietors;The German academic community agrees that the Commonwealth Return Act shall be similar to the necessary joint lawsuits,and that the Taiwan region of China is more legitimacy confirming this system;in terms of sentencing,it mainly addresses whether some of the co-owners will not be affected by the lawsuit.Although there is a difference in the academic discipline between Germany,Japan,and Taiwan in China,Taiwan's practice in Taiwan basically agrees with the theory of full expansion of judgment and effectiveness,and it has a clear guarantee before and after the third party's procedural safeguards.As a supporting system,it fully embodies the one-off settlement of disputes and the legislative purpose of procedural guarantee balance.The forth part: In the substantive law,China can learn from the legislative provisions of Germany and Taiwan region of China to unify and clarify the remedies for common-law return lawsuits,and to increase the provisions for allowing individual defendants to file individual lawsuits.In the procedural law,similar requirements must be introduced.The litigation system echoes the provisions of the substantive law,and then it reconstructs the system of effective judgment expansion and third-party procedural safeguards,and forms a complete supporting litigation system similar to the necessary joint litigation system.