論保全錯誤的程式法解釋

The Procedural Interpretation of Preservation Error

“保全錯誤”及其“賠償責任”的含義可以分別從程式法和實體法兩個角度進行解釋。最高人民法院通過裁判建立起單純從實體法角度進行解釋的規則，不僅不符合立法原意，而且違背保全申請行為的基本原理，導致申請人申請保全權與被申請人合法權益保護的失衡。在裁判方法上，以基礎案件實體裁判結果倒推申請人主觀狀態的方法在邏輯上難以自洽。單純實體法解釋導向下的保全程式規則局部萎縮，擔保功能變異，判斷保全錯誤的實體標準模糊，潛藏司法不統一的危險。應當重視保全錯誤的程式法解釋，仔細區分程式法意義上的保全錯誤與實體法意義上的侵權。

The meaning of “preservation error” and “compensation liability” can be explained from the perspectives of procedural law and substantive law respectively. The Supreme People’ s Court establishes the rules purely from the perspective of substantive law, and ignores the the perspective of procedural law, which is not only inconsistent with the original intention of legislation, but also violates the basic principle of application preservation, leading to the imbalance between the applicant’s right to apply for preservation and the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent. In terms of judgment method, it is not logic self-consistent to deduce the applicant’s subjective state by the result of substantive adjudication of the underlying case. The preservation procedure rules under the guidance of pure entity law interpretation partially atrophied, the guarantee function changes, and the entity standard of judging the preservation error is fuzzy, and hides the danger of judicial inconsistency. We should attach importance to the interpretation of the procedural law of the preservation error, and carefully distinguish the preservation error in the sense of the procedural law from the infringement in the sense of the substantive law.