形成之诉独立存在吗?——对诉讼类型传统理论的质疑

Is the Action of Formation Self-existent? -Some inquiries on Traditional Theory of Action Types

形成之诉是一个缺乏实质内容并为了分类而设置的概念,就其本来意义而言,只存在实体法上的形成之诉,即形成诉权的形成之诉。诉讼类型"三分说"将诉讼类型与实体权利一一对应的分类方法是不合理的,权利保护请求权说的废弃则使与形成权相对应的形成之诉失去了存在的基础。而认为形成之诉由法院通过判决直接变更法律关系的观点,显然违背了审判权的本质和法院的任务。形成之诉与给付之诉、确认之诉相区别的形成判决的对世效力和形成力诸特征,实质上是其审判对象——形成权本身的特性,且趋于模糊。法院在形成之诉中的主要任务是确认原告主张的形成权是否存在,至于变更法律关系则是由形成权构成要件确认后当然发生的,只不过形式上是由法院判决宣告而已。因此,作为诉讼类型的形成之诉并不独立存在,而实体法上的形成之诉究其实质属于确认之诉,至多属于确认之诉的特殊情形。

cording to its original The suit for change is set up out of the need of classification and without any substantial merit. Acmeaning, this kind of suit only exits in substantial law, so it is irrational to classify the kinds of suits in light of the kinds of substantial rights strictly, and the abandonment of right to seek corresponding suit for change of change right lost its existence base. The effect and changing protection doctrine make the force of change judgment is the characteristic of the right to change itself which tends to be obscure. The proposition which considers that change suit should change legal relation through court judgment is not comport with the nature of adjudicating power and task of court. The court＇ s main task in change suit is to confirm whether plaintiff＇ s right to change exists and the change of legal relation is the legal consequence of this confirmation. So the suit for change as a kind of suit doesn＇ t exist.