| Against the background of the proliferation of false litigation and the imperfect res judicata system,China has established the third party revocation litigation system through legislation.The emergence of the system in line with China’s national conditions and legislative background,with its legitimacy and necessity.However,because the system has been established for a short period of time and the regulations are relatively general,many problems have arisen during the operation of the system.In order to correctly apply the system,the most important thing is to solve the problem of the scope of eligible plaintiffs.The discussion on the content of the plaintiff’s eligible scope of the third-party revocation lawsuit is not only effective to protect the relief rights of outsiders who may be affected by the judgment of this lawsuit to the greatest extent,but also more conducive to curbing the impact of false lawsuits on my country’s judicial justice.impact,thus forming a unique third-party revocation lawsuit system in my country.Due to the design of the legal position and the ambiguity of the legislative language in the system,the qualified plaintiff in the third-party revocation lawsuit is in a dilemma in the application of the law.Some scholars believe that the system is completely unnecessary,and there is no such thing as a qualified plaintiff.This paper is devoted to comprehensively exploring the scope of qualified plaintiffs from the perspective of legislative norms and judicial practice,using the method of interpretation theory to help the system run smoothly,and to provide a legitimate basis for studying the scope of qualified plaintiffs.Expand the interpretation of the third party who meets the procedural conditions and substantive requirements to the scope of qualified plaintiffs who can initiate a third-party revocation lawsuit,and appropriately define and expand the scope of qualified plaintiffs on the basis of current academic research.It is more difficult to identify a third party without independent claim rights than a third party with independent claim rights.Therefore,we should focus on exploring the applicable standards of “legal interests” of third parties without independent claim rights.The interests of the law” and the French research on the “interests of litigation”,put forward the legitimacy of discussing the“legal interests” from the perspective of teleology.In addition,since the direct intention of the legislators to introduce a third-party revocation lawsuit is to curb false lawsuits,in practice,more and more victims of false lawsuits file revocation lawsuits.Under normal circumstances,according to the Civil Procedure Law,the court judges that the person outside the case does not belong to the "third party mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs" and judges that he does not have the subject qualification to initiate a revocation lawsuit,so that he does not participate in this lawsuit and is subject to an effective judgment.Those outside the case who are adversely affected are not able to fully protect their rights and interests due to the limitations of the legislative provisions,which obviously lacks fairness.Starting from the mechanism of the system itself,it is not appropriate to only take the legislative intention of the legislator as the institutional purpose of the third party’s revocation action.It should be defined as “mainly protecting civil substantive rights,supplemented by procedural guarantees and curbing false litigation”.for comprehensive.The Supreme Court has issued a series of guiding cases on the determination of the subject qualifications of the third-party revocation lawsuit.Although it cannot make clear general provisions for the scope of the subject of the third-party revocation lawsuit,it can be seen from the guiding spirit issued by the Supreme Court that the judicial organ is the Support the view of expanding the scope of interpretation of eligible plaintiffs.The identification of “third party with independent claim rights” is mainly based on “persons who have substantive rights to the subject matter of the disputed lawsuit”,and “victims of fraud lawsuits” are expanded and interpreted as “third parties with independent claim rights” based on the right of formation in litigation.Judicial practice identifies the forms of “third parties without independent claim rights” as “responsible judgment type”,“pre-determined type”,“recovery type”,“right repayment sequence type”,and “special legal protection type”.To a certain extent,the criteria for identifying qualified plaintiffs are relaxed,which does not necessarily lead to the occurrence of indiscriminate actions.The principle of prior use of the safeguard mechanism should be followed,so that the purpose of procedural safeguards for third-party revocation actions can be fully realized. |
