You are on page 1of 20

*

2012 56 3
1 2




58 52
74

2012


1 56 3

*


1 2012
2012 61

148

56 1 2
3



3 1 2


2



A
B A 55000 C
A A


B
A
56

3

A B C
D C
A C B AB
C D
56 3
1994 29
9
A C
C B C C D
A B

4

A A B X
B B C A

2
2012 10 31 2013
1
3 2013 327

4 2013 0038

149
2014 3

2008 2009 1 8
B C D 2009 9 28
X 1098864 50
X D 1098864 50
XX D 50 A BC

BCD A
XX
XX D X
3 BD 2009 4
D X
X A
A XX
5


56




6



7
8
9




2008

5 2013 1488
6

2010 19
2011 7
7 2 2012 6
8 2012 9 26
9
2012 23 2012 12 11
2013 1

150




2008

5







5


1
5


A
10

10 2011 69

2009 215

151
2014 3






A B 320

11

5
227 204

227
5

2008 12 3 A B
A C 20
B A C
A C

5
A C A C 20
20 B
20

12

A B C2006 12 6 C DE 1
C DE 45 2006 12 6 2007 6 5
DE 5 31500 DE C
2006 12 8 E A 2008 4 9
A C DE D
E 70 A E AC
A C
C A 45
C
13

11 2012 4
12 2011 3 47
2011 136
13 2010 3

152

A DE
E A C C





2


A B C
A A
A A
C C A
B
C
A C C

14

A BC
BC 30 D
D BC
A
D BC
A BC
D
15



16

17

18 5


14 2011 142
15 2011 77
16
12 136
17 2012 10 2010
1 2011 28
18 2009 2

153
2014 3

3

19

A B B A
3 A C 30 %
C A B A B
5
20

A B
A A B 7 C AB

A



21
A B A
B C
600 B C
B 600
574 56
A B C
351 853346 C C
A C
A
A
5
C
22

A B
B CD B B

19

2012 1
20 2011 308
21 5
2009 2510
22 2009 215

154

5


AB 23





A B 5

24





25







27 5
26


28

29
30

23 2010 16
24 12 136
25
26 2011 2
27 2004 9 2012
9 2012 10
2012 11 2012 1
2011 11


28 2012 90 5
5
29 2012 9 2012
10 2012 11
2011 11 2011 2

30 29

155
2014 3


31


32
33










34





35 2012

36




5



31 2010 5 2012
90
32 2010 5
33 2004 9 2011
2
34
1984 295 2 11
2007 1174
2005 643
35 9
36 1 64

156








37








37 2013 2013
11 305

157
2014 3


38





39








56 3


56 3
40


2003



41

56 3




38 1 63
39
2008 308
40

2003 211
41 115 2004 12

158


56 3







42


43



44















45


46

42 2
43 56
2014 1
44

2
45

2012 62
46 2

159
2014 3


47



56 3








48







49

47 1990 7 28
48
2013 3 7
http / / www civillaw com cn / Article / default asp id = 59834
49 2013 4

160

56






56
56 1
2
3
4
5
1 2
3 4 5
1 3 4 5 2 3 4 5


3 4 5 1 2 4



161
2014 3


4


50

1 2




51
56 1


56 3





52


56 2




53


54

50 4

51 2007 108
2012
2012 84
52 1 62
53 2
54 43

162



55
90


56








9



1
2 4 1
2 4 56 3



57
58



200

201


42

55 45 57
56 1994 12 22
9 11
57 1 65
58 43

163
2014 3
















200 9



59


56

2


60





61

59 45 55
60 45 60
61 43

164


62




63
64


4



1 58 4 7
2 52
2 3
3 74















62 1926
47 1
2007 484
63
2005 3
64 9 45 57

165
2014 3

65

66







56 3
1 2






58 52 74







67


65 58 52
1
2011 655 74
2 2011 144
66

67
43
2014 3

166


68







Abstract 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 prac-
tice Thereforeit 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 proceedingsit 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 Accordinglythe requirements provided for by Article 56 Para-
graph 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 in-
dependent claimthe 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 claimto whom the limitative policy of the Supreme PeoplesCourt for the third
party is not applicable Considering the deferral of the theorya 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 judgmentthe 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
Key Words the third party opposition proceedingapplication for rehearing by a person other than
those involved in the casequalified plaintifflegislative purpose

68 2

167