Research On Civil False Litigation Identification And Procedure Regulation System

At present,with the rapid development of the economy and society,the credit crisis has also become a social problem that we are facing.In the field of civil litigation,it is highlighted as a false litigation issue.In recent years,in practice,the number of false litigation cases has been increasing year by year.False litigation is undoubtedly a far cry from the value orientation of civil lawsuits.It is undoubtedly running counter to the building of a fair,efficient and authoritative justice system.Within a few short years,false litigation has become increasingly serious due to its waste of judicial resources,erosion of the credibility of the judiciary,and turmoil in social integrity.In response to this,this social phenomenon has been affected by all sectors of society.In particular,local courts attach great importance to it.This paper explores the problems in the process of regulating false litigation by studying three cases of false litigation and puts forward some simple suggestions.This article is divided into three parts:The first part: Brief introduction and case analysis.This article is guided by the Supreme People’s Court’s Guiding Case on False Litigation in 2016,and also selects a case involving a third party to revoke a lawsuit and a related case of a false lawsuit.Through the analysis of the case,it is found that the guilty litigation process exists.There are three aspects of the problem,namely,the identification of difficult lawsuits,the issue of procedural regulations for false lawsuits,and the relief of third parties.The second part: The legal analysis of the case.This part mainly focuses on the three issues mentioned in the above cases,and analyzes them one by one.It puts forward the manifestations,the causes of these problems,the legal regulations at thecurrent stage,some deficiencies found from them,and analyzes and analyzes the harms caused by these problems.First of all,the difficulty in identifying false lawsuits is due to the fact that false lawsuits are highly concealed,and there are deficiencies in the standards for the identification of false lawsuits.In addition,the professional qualities of some judges need to be improved,leading to the false identification of lawsuits that cannot be identified in time.Secondly,on the issue of regulatory measures,the statutory provisions in the current stage are not operative,and the disciplinary measures are relatively light,so their effectiveness is limited,and the litigation credit system is relatively lagging behind.As a result,the perpetrators dare to take risks and implement false lawsuits.Finally,for the issue of relief for third parties,the law at this stage will not provide for perfection of the third party’s revocation of the lawsuit,lack of supporting litigation notification systems,excessively strict proof of third party liability,too narrow scope of the subject,and prosecution.Due to the lack of deadlines,third parties cannot be effectively protected.The third part: Proposes the basic idea of raising the ability of false litigation identification and civil litigation laws and regulations.Mainly for the second part of some questions to make recommendations one by one.First of all,in the difficult problem of identification of false lawsuits,it is proposed to improve the ability to identify false lawsuits by establishing a platform for the sharing of case information society,establishing clear criteria for discrimination,and strengthening the construction of judge teams.Secondly,for the regulation of false lawsuits,it is suggested that the regulatory mechanism for false lawsuits should be perfected from the aspects of improving the operability of relevant laws and strengthening the regulatory means and establishing a complete litigation integrity system.Finally,on the issue of relief for third parties,the system for revoking the third party’s lawsuit shall be perfected from the aspects of perfecting the court notification system,rationally distributing the burden of proof,expanding the scope of the plaintiff,and adjusting the period for indictment.