摘要
已确认事实的预决力既不同于裁判的既判力,也有别于"争点效"和"争点排除规则",其是我国民事诉讼法确立的一项具有独特内涵的制度。然而,由于我国民事诉讼法未明确预决力的条件和范围,从而致使司法实践中法院的做法各不相同,这种状况一方面有损法院判决的一致性、权威性,也与确立预决力制度的初衷相违背,因此,民事诉讼法的修改应明确预决力的条件和范围。实践中,法院应根据已确认事实的不同具体认定其不同的预决力。
Prejudging of facts adjudged is different from Res judicata and issue validity in Japan as well as the rule of issue preclusion of United States, it is a system with unique content and established by Civil Procedure Law of PRC. However, since the condition and sphere of prejudging force is not defined in the Civil Procedure Law, different courts apply it to practice in different ways, this situation will undermine the ＂unity＂ and ＂authority＂ of court＇s judgment and also be contrary to the original intention of establishing prejudging force, therefore, the condition and sphere of prejudging force be established in the amendment of Civil Procedure Law. Practically, the court should adopt different prejudging force based on different specific facts adjudged.
出处
《中国法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2008年第3期102-109,共8页
China Legal Science
