请求权竞合诉讼的检视与重构  

Inspection and Reconstruction of Claim Concurrence Litigation

作　　者：杨剑炜[1] 张瑜[1] 李抒波 YANG Jianwei;ZHANG Yu;LI Shubo(Law School,Shanxi University of Finance and Economics,Taiyuan Shanxi 030000,China;Law School,Shanxi University,Taiyuan Shanxi 030000,China)

机构地区：[1]山西财经大学法学院,山西太原030000 [2]山西大学法学院,山西太原030000

出　　处：《江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版)》2025年第1期43-50,共8页Journal of Jiangsu University of Science and Technology(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：山西省研究生科研创新项目“民法典与民事诉讼法协同实施下请求权竞合研究”(2023KY059)。

摘　　要：请求权竞合的规范冲突问题由来已久。若欲解决此难题,需要民事实体法与程序法的协力建构。《民法典》第186条作为请求权自由竞合说的典范,要求当事人在诉讼中“择一行使”,而这一规定易造成重复诉讼且有碍于民事纠纷的一次性解决。对此,可立足实体和程序的双向思维,以德、日经验为参考,着眼于我国立法与司法实践,在肯定民事诉讼中适用旧诉讼标理论基础上,以客观预备合并之诉的制度建构为蓝本,明确其启动条件、确定管辖法院及在一审和上诉审时的程序选择和范围认定,以解决第186条的诉讼实施难题。The problem of normative conflict of concurrence of claims has existed for a long time.To solve this problem requires the joint construction of civil substantive law and procedural law.Article 186 of Civil Code,as a model of the theory of concurrence of claims,requires the parties to"choose one to exercise"in the litigation,which is easy to cause repeated litigation and violates the one-time settlement of civil disputes.Therefore,this study will be based on the two-way thinking of entity and procedure,taking the experience of Germany and Japan as a reference,focusing on China's legislation and judicial practice.Based on the construction of the system of objective preparatory merger action,it is necessary to clarify its startup conditions,determine the jurisdictional court and the procedural choice and scope determination in the first instance and appeal trial,so as to properly solve the problem of the implementation of article 186 in litigation.

关 键 词：请求权竞合 择一而诉 诉讼标的 客观合并之诉 备位之诉 

分 类 号：D915.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]