| 英文摘要 |
From the view of maintaining the state order in ancient China, the crimes of fallacy and treason are the most serious threat to imperial politics, so it had became the focus of the national legal In judicial practice, it is generally guaranteed that the application of necessary joint litigation in suretyship disputes is improperly expanded due to the definition of the scope of the facts of the dispute. This approach does not strictly follow the benchmarks adopted by the joint action at the normative level to judge the subject matter of litigation. Therefore, when revising and adjusting the form of joint action involved in suretyship disputes, it is necessary to return to the subject matter of the litigation for consideration. On the basis of clarifying the relationship between the subject matter of the litigation and the facts of the case, it can be concluded from the interpretive perspective that suretyship disputes should adopt the form of ordinary joint litigation. In addition, in the case of a separate lawsuit involving suretyship dispute, it is necessary to respond to issues such as the necessity of using intervention. |
