英文摘要 |
The years between 2016 and 2021 have witnessed an apparent change of the Supreme Peo-ple's Court's standing on the scope of sham lawsuits. Based on the analysis of 1570 cases, it is found that there are fundamental differences in the adjudications on sham lawsuits rendered by courts in different re-gions. In theory, a divergence shall be found between 'the theory of sham dispute', 'the theory of injury to a third party' and 'the theory of obstruction of judicial order'. Upon the precondition of knowing the essence of lawsuit, the sham lawsuit shall be defined as an act of 'malice conspiracy' that aims to funda-mentally destruct the basic structure of 'two-party confrontation' of civil proceedings. This kind of law-suits completely disintegrates the structural foundation that enables the operation of the civil proceeding system, and makes 'lawsuit' to become 'making peace' without adversary. This act shall be especially regulated to realize the system's regulatory purpose. The reasons that 'unilateral act' shall be excluded from the scope of sham lawsuits are not only that the coercive measures against the acts of obstructing civil proceeding could easily handle 'unilateral act', but also that the inclusion of 'unilateral act' would blur the boundary of sham lawsuit, infringe on the parties' right of lawsuit, violate the principle of pro-portion, increase the court's burden of trial, and damage judicial authority. The unlawful forms of law-suits, such as malice lawsuit, abuse of right of lawsuit, bringing lawsuit by assuming other's name, are fundamentally different from sham lawsuits, and thus shall be clearly differentiated. |