| 英文摘要 |
Judicial cases show that practice usually regulates part of the request with the rule of repeated prosecution, supplemented by a measure of interest. The regulation of some requests should be changed from the perspective of academic research, and should be centered on Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, that is, the normative examination of the repeated prosecution rules, and then consider other elements of interest. The rules of repeated prosecution should abandon the elements of litigation, and the subject matter of litigation should return to the old substantive law theory that takes the right of claim as the identification standard, and the identification can refer to the basis of the right of claim in the Civil Code. In practice, the typical types of some claims are concentrated in contract disputes and tort disputes in civil causes, and the legality of some claims should be denied under the examination of the elements of the two repeated prosecution rules of "party + subject matter of litigation". However, under the interpretation of legal norms surrounding the rules of duplicate prosecution, some requests should be allowed to be filed in the following circumstances: first, it complies with the provisions of paragraph 2 of article 247 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, that is, it has clear provisions of substantive law; The second is the provision of Article 248 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, that is, the situation where there are new facts, such as follow-up treatment fees; Third, on the basis of unforeseeability, it is said that the subsequent litigation should not be bound by the res judicata of the previous appeal, such as the sequelae of the subsequent appeal; Fourth, when it is objectively difficult for the plaintiff to file all the claims in the previous action. |
