司法決策的合法性以尚俊俊“被結婚”案為例

南通法院審理的尚俊俊被人冒名登記結婚案，被視為實質性化解糾紛的成功案例，但同樣應當經受合法性的檢驗。複盤該案可以發現，法院要想幫尚俊俊解開死結，從方案到理由均存在多個選項，但受法條、學說、先例、後果考量的約束，各選項既不是任意的也不是唯一的。行政行為無效理論不是法院突破法定最長起訴期限的適當理由，無漏洞的權利救濟也許是更好的理由；判決確認冒名登記行為無效不是解除尚俊俊困境的最好方式，確認尚俊俊與第三人不成立婚姻關係應是更好的方式。對尚俊俊來說，理論上最好的救濟途徑是向河南當地法院起訴當地民政局，要求辦理結婚登記；但對南通法院來說，受理尚俊俊要求撤銷冒名結婚登記的訴訟不失為合理選擇。司法決策的合法性不是有無的問題，而是多少的問題，法院的任務不過是選擇其中最好的一種。法律教義學和法律現實主義在案例分析中都存在視角盲區。

This article takes the case of Shang Junjun as an example to explore the legitimacy of judicial decision-making in complex situations. Ms. Shang Junjun from Henan Province encountered seemingly insurmountable legal obstacles when applying for marriage registration because her name had been falsely registered by unknow persons in different provinces more than 10 years before. Her request to revoke the false registrations was denied by the registration agency, and her lawsuit against the registration agency exceeded the maximum limitation of 5 years prescribed by the law. The courts in Nantong of Jiangsu province and in other places finally helped her out of this deadlock. Reviewing the case, it can be found that the courts have multiple options to deal with the case. Each option is constrained by legal provisions, doctrines, precedents and consequences, and its choice is neither“the only one”nor“any one”. The legitimacy of judicial decision-making is not a matter of yes or no, but of how much. The task of the court is simply to choose the best one under specific circumstances. Both legal doctrinism and legal realism have blind spots in case studies.