在特殊情况下,当事人之间的生效裁判很可能会影响到第三人的利 益,各国民事诉讼法往往赋予第三人以撤销权,即第三人享有在事后对 当事人之间的生效裁判提出异议以保障自身权益的权利,只是,各国设 置的第三人行使撤销权的方式不尽相同,目前主要第三人提起撤销之诉 和第三人再审之诉两种,前者目前主要存在于法国、中国台湾地区和大 陆地区,而后者多见于日本、意大利、中国澳门地区的民事诉讼法之中. 中国台湾地区“民事诉讼法”设置第三人撤销之诉之前,学者们主要对第三 人撤销之诉与第三人再审之诉的进行对比研究,为立法时设置第三人撤 销权行使方式提供可行的方案. 2003年设置第三人撤销之诉之后,主要对 第三人撤销之诉的完善进行了深入的研究. 中国大陆地区的学术界同样经 历了立法前和立法后不同的研究思路. 然而,中国大陆地区与台湾地区的 不同在于,目前同时存在第三人再审之诉和第三人撤销之诉两种第三人 撤销权行使方式,因此,对第三人再审之诉和第三人撤销之诉进行对比 研究,以解决目前两种方式并行局面依然十分重要. 本文着眼于民事诉讼 中第三人利益的事后保护,从分析第三人撤销权的理论基础开始,在分 析各国目前存在的第三人撤销权行使方式的基础上,重点研究第三人撤 销之诉与第三人再审之诉的区别,最终认为,第三人撤销之诉是一种独 立的、具有程序自足性的第三人行使撤销权的方式,既实现了对第三人 的利益的完整保护,又兼顾了当事人的利益,其优于第三人再审之诉. 从 第三人的撤销权行使角度来看,应该取消我国的案外人再审之诉,仅保 留第三人撤销之诉,结束目前两种撤销权行使方式并行的状态. 本成果的 理论价值集中体现为在理论上对第三人撤销之诉和第三人再审之诉的对 比分析,通过三个方面的对比研究,得出了第三人撤销之诉优于第三人再审之诉的结论,将两者的理论关系提高到了新的高度. 本成果的实践价 值集中体现为为通过之前在理论上所得出的第三人撤销之诉优于第三人 再审之诉的结论,具体分析了我国目前第三人撤销之诉与第三人再审之 诉的并列局面,提出了解决目前困境的方案,以指导之后的民事诉讼立 法.
In special circumstances, the effective judgment between the parties is likely to affect the interests of third party. In most case the third party is vested with the right of revocation by civil procedural law in different nations. Which means, the third party has right to object to the parties’ effective judgement to protect his or her rights. However, the specific ways of exercising the right of revocation for the third party differ from nation to nation. At present, there are mainly two ways: the third party discharging the judgment and the third party retrial proceedings. The former mainly exists in France, Taiwan and mainland of China, while the latter is usually exists in the civil procedural laws of Japan, Italy, and Macao of China. Before the third party discharging the judgment was set up in “Civil Procedure Law” in the Taiwan of China, In order to provide a viable solution for setting the specific ways of exercising the right of revocation for the third party during the legislative process, scholars mainly conducted a comparative study of the third party’s petition for cancellation and litigation of retrial, After setting up the third party’s petition for cancellation in 2003, it mainly conducted an in-depth study on the improvement of the suit. Academic circles in mainland of China also experienced different research ideas before and after legislation. However, the difference between the mainland of China and the Taiwan region lies in the fact that there are two types of the third party’s revocation rights: the third party lodging a petition for cancellation or lodging a litigation of retrial. Therefore, it is still important to conducted a comparative study of them in order to solve the current parallel situations. This article focuses on the post-protection of third-party interests in civil litigation. Starting from the theoretical foundation, on the basis of the analysis of the existing methods of exercising the right of withdrawal of third parties in various countries. This article focuses on the differences between the third party discharging the judgment and the third party retrial proceedings. Finally, it is considered that the third discharging the judgment is an independent way of exercising the right of rescission by third parties who are self-sufficient in procedure. It not only realizes the complete protection of the interests of the third party, but also takes into account the interests of the parties, and it is superior to the retrial of the third party. From the perspective of the third party’s exercise of the right of revocation, we should cancel the third party retrial proceedings and only retain the third party discharging the judgment, ending the coexistence of the two modes. The theoretical value of this achievement is intensively reflected as a comparative analysis of the third party discharging the judgment and the third party retrial proceedings in theory, Through three aspects of comparative research reached a conclusion that the third party discharging the judgment is better than the third party retrial proceedings. Increasing the theoretical relationship between them to a new height. The practical value of this achievement is mainly reflected in the conclusion that the third party discharging the judgment is better than the third party retrial proceedings, analyzed in detail of the situation in parallel between these two ways and presented a solution to the current difficulties, so that it can guide later civil litigation legislation.