第三人撤销之诉的原告适格

考察我国案外人申请再审的实践可以发现,我国法院并不接受判决效力相对性原则,不能以此为据反对引入第三人撤销之诉,更不能以此作为分析第三人撤销之诉原告适格的出发点。尽管立法者希望通过第三人撤销之诉规制虚假诉讼、恶意诉讼,但从制度自身的机理出发,将该制度的目的界定为"为受生效裁判不利影响的第三人提供实体救济"更妥当。以此为基点,在对待第三人撤销之诉的原告适格问题上,应以2012年民事诉讼法第56条第3款规定的必备要件为重点,对于第1、2款规定的前提性要件,则采相对宽容的审查标准。对于有独立请求权的第三人,可将原告适格的标准界定为"对当事人争议的诉讼标的主张实体权利的人";对于无独立请求权的第三人,则采相对宽松的一般标准,不适用最高人民法院针对通知参加诉讼第三人的限制性规定。考虑到理论的周延性,必要共同诉讼人不宜作为第三人撤销之诉的适格原告。至于受生效裁判不利影响的一般债权人,较稳健的做法是诉诸实体法,通过援引民法通则第58条、合同法第52条或者合同法第74条,赋予相关债权人第三人撤销之诉的原告适格。

Qualified Plaintiff in Proceedings of Third Party Opposition

A review of the practice of application for rehearing by a person other than those involved in the case shows that Chinese courts do not accept the relativity principle of res judicata in legal practice. Therefore, it can not be used as the basis for introducing the third party opposition proceedings in Chinese civil procedure or treated as the starting point of an analysis of the qualification of plaintiff in the third party opposition proceedings. Although legislators hope to regulate malicious action and fraudulent litigation through the third party opposition proceedings, it is more proper to define purpose of third party opposition proceedings as "to provide substantive relief to a third party who is adversely affected by an effective judgment". Accordingly, the requirements provided for by Article 56 Paragraph 3 of Chinese Civil Procedural Law should be taken as essential requirements in considering the qualification of the third party opposition proceedings whereas a less strict standard should be adopted for the prerequisite provided for Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 56. For a third party with independent claim, the standard of the plaintiff qualification could be defined as a person who "claims substantive rights in the object of litigation". A less strict standard should be adopted for a third party without independent claim, to whom the limitative policy of the Supreme Peoples'' Court for the third party is not applicable. Considering the deferral of the theory, a necessary co-plaintiff is not suitable to be treated as qualified plaintiff in third party opposition proceedings. As for a creditor suffering the adverse effect of a valid judgment, the better approach is to resort to the substantive law and to grant him the qualification of plaintiff in third party opposition proceedings in accordance with to Article 58 of General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 52 or 74 of Contract Law.