法律上不能并存之诉的主观合并  

Subjective Combination of the Mutually Exclusive Claims in Law

作　　者：薛晓芳 XUE Xiaofang

机构地区：[1]北京航空航天大学法学院

出　　处：《中国政法大学学报》2025年第2期160-172,共13页Journal Of CUPL

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年项目“民事执行法典化背景下对债权的执行制度研究”(项目编号:20CFX030)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：为实现原告在实体法上的择一性权利设计对应的诉讼程序,是民事诉讼发挥私权保障功能的内在要求。我国既有的共同诉讼制度与第三人制度均无法为此提供周延的解释论方案,必须从立法论视角探索法律上不能并存之诉的主观合并范式。该制度旨在防止形成原告两诉均胜或均败的矛盾裁判,并应规避由此对被告造成的制度负外部性。为此,针对一审程序,依原告之申请,法院应对法律上不能并存之诉合并辩论、合一裁判。原告不得对其中一项请求附加诉讼系属或请求裁判层面的条件,其主张的审理顺位亦不对法院的诉讼指挥权产生约束效力。被告有权提出管辖权异议。针对二审程序,可融入拟制上诉规则,但应以尊重原告对上诉权的自由处分为必要限度。Designing litigation procedures that correspond to the plaintiff’s alternative rights in substantive law is an inherent requirement for civil litigation to fulfill its function of safeguarding private rights.Neither China’s existing joint litigation system nor the third-party system can provide a comprehensive explanatory solution for this purpose.Therefore,it is necessary to explore the subjective combination paradigm of mutually exclusive claims in law from a legislative perspective.This system aims to prevent contradictory judgments where the plaintiff wins or loses both lawsuits,and should avoid the negative externalities of the system caused to the defendants.To achieve this institutional goal,for the first-instance proceeding,the court must consolidate the arguments and render a unified judgment for mutually exclusive claims.The plaintiff cannot attach condition related to the pending litigation or the request for adjudication to one of the claims,and the sequence of trial advocated by the plaintiff does not have binding effect on the court’s command of the proceedings.For the second-instance proceeding,fictional appeal rule can be incorporated,but this should be limited to respecting the plaintiff’s freedom to dispose of the right to appeal.

关 键 词：法律上不能并存之诉 主观合并 主观预备合并 同时审判申请共同诉讼 

分 类 号：D925.1[政治法律—诉讼法学]