摘要
关于诈骗取得判决有无既判力的问题,德国、日本的学术界和实务界向来有肯定说与否定说的争执。其争论的焦点是确定判决的既判力能否不经再审程序而直接破除的问题。在民事诉讼中,程序安定等程序基本要求固然重要,但也并非恒定优先于诚实信用原则的适用。在此意义之下,一味强调程序安定的优先性而绝对地承认诈骗取得判决的既判力,或者反之,均非所宜。因此,原则上应当依据程序安定的基本要求承认诈骗取得判决的既判力,受害方当事人为了救济自身的权利,应当启动再审程序以破除其既判力;在例外情形下,允许依据民事诉讼中的诚实信用原则否定诈骗取得判决的既判力,受害方当事人可以直接起诉要求损害赔偿以获得救济。
With regard to whether the decision acquired by fraud is res judicata, disputes always exist be- tween affirmation theory and negation theory in German and Japanese academia and practical circle. The point at issue is if the res judicata can be broken directly without the retrial procedure. In civil litigation, basic re- quirements of procedure are significant as procedure stability etc, but without taking precedence of the bona fi- de doctrine consistently. In this sense, it is inappropriate to blindly emphasize the priority of procedure stability so that absolutely allows the res judicata acquired by fraud, or vice versa. Therefore, based on the require- ments of procedure stability, the basic principle should be that the decision acquired by fraud is regarded as res judicata, while the injured party should initiate the retrial procedure to break the res judicata for relieving their rights. In exceptional cases, in accordance with the bona fide doctrine, denying the res judicata acquired by fraud is allowed, so the injured party could sue for damages directly to gain remedies.
出处
《西南政法大学学报》
2015年第2期75-82,共8页
Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law
基金
西南政法大学2013年度青年教师学术创新团队项目(XZQNCXTD2013-07)
关键词
诈骗取得判决
再审
既判力
诚实信用原则
decision acquired by fraud
retrial procedure
res judicata
bona fide doctrine
