民事二审撤回起诉禁止再诉规则研究  

An Analysis of the Rule Prohibiting Plaintiff’s Re-litigation Following Withdrawal in Second Instance Civil Cases

作　　者：唐力[1] 易夕寒 Tang Li;Yi Xihan··

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院 [2]西南政法大学人民法庭研究中心 [3]重庆市渝北区人民法院,重庆401120

出　　处：《学海》2024年第4期167-179,216,共14页Academia Bimestris

摘　　要：针对二审中原告撤回起诉又再行诉讼的问题,《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》设立了再诉禁止规则,但该规则存在不当限制原告诉权、不当比附重复起诉、不当设定处置后果等三重缺陷。基于比例原则,我国不宜续采再行诉讼禁止模式。为实现二审原告撤回起诉再行诉讼的规制转型,我国应从再诉失权转向费用偿付,并在诉讼费用偿付模式的本土展开过程中,从偿付范围和偿付路径等方面完成标准建构。The approach to a plaintiff’s re-litigation following the withdrawal of a lawsuit in the second instance varies within the civil law system,with Germany and Japan adopting distinct methodologies,namely,reimbursement of litigation costs and prohibition of re-litigation.The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law introduces a prohibition of re-litigation rule not identical to Japan’s approach.This rule exhibits three critical flaws:it unduly restricts the plaintiff’s right to initiate lawsuits,draws an unreasonable parallel with repeated litigation,and employs an inadequate set of disposition measures.Based on the principle of proportionality,it is not appropriate for China to continue with the prohibition of re-litigation mode.To reform the regulation concerning a plaintiff’s re-litigation post-withdrawal in the second instance,this paper proposes a shift from the prohibition of re-litigation mode to the reimbursement of litigation costs mode,and in the process of localizing the litigation cost reimbursement model,it should complete the standard construction in aspects such as the scope and pathway of reimbursement.

关 键 词：二审撤回起诉 禁止再诉 诉讼费用偿付 比例原则 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]