|
|
|
| Withdrawal of Lawsuit Due to Settlement in Civil Litigation: Theoretical Reflection and Institutional Reconstruction |
| Zhang Yan |
| School of Law, Hangzhou City University, Hangzhou310015, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract According to China’s Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations and their implementation, when the parties reach a settlement, they can apply to the court for either mediation or withdrawal. Withdrawal due to Settlement seems like a good rule, which is consistent with the principle of disposition and the judicial policy of encouraging the withdrawal. But in fact, there are theoretical and practical dilemma in this rule.There are mainly four specific dilemmas of The Rule of Withdrawal Due to Settlement. Firstly, it objectively caused the unnecessary difference between the litigation mediation and litigation settlement. Litigation mediation can only apply be used the court for the mediation agreement, but while the litigation settlement can apply be used for the withdrawal. Secondly, it increases the potential risk of fraud-based fake settlement by the parties. This rule artificially takes the opportunity for opportunism, which is contrary to the goal of system for preventing and curtailing opportunism. Thirdly, it overestimates the advantages but ignores its the risks of the withdrawal. In fact, the withdrawal does not mean that the dispute has been resolved, but the parties still have the chance to submit the dispute to litigation again. Fourthly, it leads to a serious conflict between among a number of procedural systems. Due to the lack of confirmation of the court, the settlement can not fight against the effective judgment already existed before.Re-examining and evaluating The Rule of Withdrawal Due to Settlement has significance for the scientification and systematization of the civil procedure law. It is suggested that The Rule of Withdrawal Due to Settlement be deleted in the future revision of the civil procedure law. There are two alternatives to choose from. One is to learn from the experience of comparative law. The litigation settlement agreement will be recorded in the transcript of trail and given the effect of enforcement so that the parties have no chance to renege or fraud. The strong effect of enforcement fixes the consent between the parties, and truly embodies the spirit of the dispositive principle of the law of civil procedure. The other one is to reference to the litigation mediation, i.e. applying for mediation based on the litigation settlement agreement. Against the background of the dominance of the mediation system in the Chinese law, the road of litigation mediation is a reasonable and cost effective choice.
|
|
Received: 28 June 2024
|
|
|
|
1 美］史蒂文·瓦戈、［美］史蒂文·巴坎：《法律与社会》，邢朝国、梁坤译，郭星华审校，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2023年。
2 王瑞贺主编：《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法释义》（最新修订版），北京：法律出版社，2023年。
3 江必新主编：《新民事诉讼法释义》，北京：人民法院出版社，2022年。
4 德］穆泽拉克：《德国民事诉讼法基础教程》，周翠译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2005年。
5 澳］娜嘉·亚历山大：《全球调解趋势》，王福华等译，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年。
6 日］伊藤真：《民事诉讼法》，曹云吉译，北京：北京大学出版社，2019年。
7 日］小岛武司、伊藤真编：《诉讼外纠纷解决法》，丁婕译，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2005年。
8 陶凯元、杨万明、王淑梅主编：《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法理解与适用》（上），北京：人民法院出版社，2024年。
9 印］阿马蒂亚·森：《理性与自由》，李风华译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2006年。
10 澳］柯武刚［德］史漫飞、［美］贝彼得：《制度经济学：财产、竞争、政策》第二版（修订版），柏克、韩朝华译，北京：商务印书馆，2018年。
11 英］梅因：《古代法》，沈景一译，北京：商务印书馆，1997年。
12 荷］本雅明·范·罗伊、［美］亚当·费恩：《规则为什么会失败：法律管不住的人类行为暗码》，高虹远译，上海：上海三联书店，2023年。
13 张卫平：《转换的逻辑：民事诉讼体制转型分析》，北京：法律出版社，2004年。
14 最高人民法院编：《最高人民法院指导性案例（第一批—第九批）》，北京：人民法院出版社，2015年。
15 最高人民法院民法典贯彻实施工作领导小组办公室编著：《最高人民法院新民事诉讼法司法解释理解与适用》（上），北京：人民法院出版社，2022年。
16 《德国民事诉讼法典》，赵秀举译，北京：法律出版社，2021年。
17 《法国民事诉讼法典》，周建华译，厦门：厦门大学出版社，2022年。
18 《日本民事诉讼法典》，曹云吉译，厦门：厦门大学出版社，2017年。
19 韩］孙汉琦：《韩国民事诉讼法导论》，陈刚审译，北京：中国法制出版社，2010年。
20 《苏维埃民事诉讼法典》，梁启明、邓曙光译，北京：法律出版社，1982年。
21 苏］多勃罗沃利斯基：《苏维埃民事诉讼》，李衍译，北京：法律出版社，1985年。
22 德］伯恩·魏德士：《法理学》，丁晓春、吴越译，北京：法律出版社，2013年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
