Research On Improper Interpretation And Regulation In Civil Litigation

Inappropriate interpretation in civil litigation means that the judge failed to explain to the parties what should be clarified,or clarified matters that cannot be clarified,or the exercise of interpretation exceeds a reasonable limit,or the exercise of interpretation violates The procedures have caused serious impacts on the legitimate rights and interests of the parties,fearless waste of judicial resources,and even unfair judgments.Therefore,it is indeed necessary to regulate improper interpretation.First of all,this is an inevitable choice to prevent the expansion of the power of judges.Based on the nature of power that is extremely easy to expand,judges will subconsciously pursue the expansion of powers,and the integrity of litigation rights associated with the parties will definitely be harmed by this;secondly,this is also an inevitable requirement to protect the litigant’s legal rights and interests.Because the ultimate purpose of the establishment of the right of interpretation is to ensure the realization of substantive justice,improper interpretation not only seriously damages the litigation interests of the parties,but also runs counter to the value goal of the right of interpretation to pursue substantive justice;in the end,this is a civil lawsuit in my country.The objective needs of judicial practice.With full consideration of the current status of civil litigation,China is implementing new judicial reforms.Improving the efficiency of litigation is the main thread of the reform,and improper interpretation will inevitably lead to the failure of the purpose of the reform.After analyzing and studying the cases involving improper interpretation in the period of 2020 in the Peking University’s magic weapon legal database,it can be found that the judge’s slack interpretation and erroneous interpretation are the main types of improper interpretation at this stage in my country.Among them,slack in interpretation is the main type of improper interpretation in China.Explanation is the most common phenomenon.Laziness in explanation refers to the act that the judge should explain but not clarify,which seriously damages the legitimate litigation interests of the parties.In practice,it is laziness to explain to the parties the request for change of the lawsuit,clarify the lawsuit request,file a counterclaim,apply for appraisal,and further Proof,the distribution of the burden of proof,the adverse consequences of overdue proof,the increase or clarification of the defendant,the adjustment of excessive liquidated damages,and legal opinions.Among them,the failure to explain the litigation claims and evidence is the main situation;mistakes;Interpretation means that the judge made mistakes in determining the disputed facts of the case or understanding the relevant laws and regulations,and gave wrong instructions to the parties based on the wrong judgment,which affected the smooth continuation of the litigation process and even led to wrong judgments.The practice mainly includes wrong interpretations.The determination of legal relationship and contract validity,as well as misinterpretation of changes to the defendant.However,whether it is laziness or wrong interpretation,it is a violation of the value of the interpretation system and must be effectively and reasonably regulated.The current legal norms regarding improper interpretation mainly exist in various judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court and judicial documents issued by local high courts,and they all clarify improper interpretation by prescribing the scope of matters that the judge should interpret.Regulations.However,practice has shown that the existing legal norms that improperly clarify regulations cannot be used in a reasonable and comprehensive regulatory role.They are mainly faced with the following dilemmas: first,the legislative level of the clarification norms is low and fragmented;second,the interpretation is not clear.The principle of the exercise of the power of clarification;third,the existing clarification norms are rather chaotic;fourth,the legal responsibility for improper interpretation is not stipulated;fifth,the remedy mechanism for improper interpretation is lacking.The right of interpretation developed earlier in Germany,Japan,and Taiwan,and the relevant regulations were relatively complete.However,the introduction of the right of interpretation was relatively late in my country.Therefore,it is necessary to investigate the interpretation rights and regulations of overseas countries(or regions),obtain corresponding enlightenment,and combine with the difficulties in our country’s practice,and put forward suggestions to improve the path of improper interpretation in civil litigation in our country.From a macro point of view,the two directions of regulating improper interpretation are to improve the interpretation legislation to control the law beforehand and to construct the post-remedy mechanism of improper interpretation.Specifically,the improvement of interpretation legislation to carry out prior legal control includes the following four aspects: First,clearly exercise the principles that interpretation should follow.Including the principle of openness,neutrality,reasonable limits,and legality;second,clearly explain the scope of exercise.Improper interpretation of regulations and clarification of the scope of exercise of interpretation is a crucial link at the legislative level.The scope of exercise of interpretation should include the interpretation of litigation claims,litigation subjects,evidence,and legal opinions;third,the right to unify interpretation How to exercise.The improper way of explanatory exercise will not only cause the parties to doubt the neutrality of the judge,but also have a serious impact on the litigant’s right to debate.Therefore,the method of explanatory exercise should be determined to be questioning and informing;fourth;,Clarify the legal responsibilities improperly explained.The correct operation of any power must follow the basic law of consistency of power and responsibility,and only by legislating the responsibility for improper interpretation in advance can the judge be cautiously clarified.The construction of a post-remedy mechanism for improper interpretation includes the following three aspects: first,to give the parties the right to remedy improper interpretation,including the right to object,appeal and the right to apply for retrial;second,increase the judge’s self-correction of improper interpretation Channels can be divided into corrections at the trial stage,corrections after the first-instance judgment is made,and corrections after the judgment becomes effective;third,the expansion of the procuratorate’s legal supervision of improper interpretations is also an important supplement to the construction of improper interpretation remedies.