释明变更诉讼请求的标准——兼论“证据规定”第35条第1款的规范目的

Criteria of Elucidation on Change of Litigation Claim

我国既有释明变更诉讼请求的理论尚难以为司法实践提供明确标准。通过整理和分析最高人民法院相关裁判文书可以发现,释明变更诉讼请求除“证据规定”第35条第1款所包含的法律关系性质和民事行为效力的释明之外,相关释明实践还包括合同解除及其法律后果、增加请求数额、变更被告以及追加必要共同诉讼人的释明,若干裁判文书还向被告释明追加无独立请求权第三人。部分裁判文书突破了处分原则的底线,这源于对“诉讼请求”的形式化理解、对二审增加“独立的诉讼请求”的误读以及当事人后诉权在司法实践中被否定的现实。通过将“证据规定”第35条第1款“变更诉讼请求”理解为变更诉讼标的,将基于相同事实或因情势变更而产生的变更诉讼请求归入“非独立的诉讼请求”,并在裁判文书中加入诉权释明,能够在一定程度上使释明变更诉讼请求符合处分原则和法官中立原则的要求。“证据规定”第 35条第 1款的规范目的应为有限的纠纷一次性解决,即以当事人的请求范围及其要件事实主张作为释明基础。这不仅能够为释明变更诉讼请求提供统一标准,而且能够在贯彻处分原则和法官中立原则的前提下实现当事人自我决定和纠纷一次性解决之间的平衡。

China’s existing theory of elucidation of the change of litigation claim is still unable to provide clear criteria for judicial practice. A review and analysis of the relevant written judgments of the Supreme People’s Court shows that elucidation of the change of litigation claim refers to the elucidation of the nature of legal relationship and the effect of civil act provided for in the Article 35 Paragraph 1 of the "Evidence Regulations", as well as elucidation of dissolution of contract and its legal consequences, the increase in the amount claimed, the change of defendant and the addition of party in necessary co-litigation. Some adjudicative documents also elucidate the defendant to add a third party without independent claim. Some adjudicative documents break through the bottom line of the principle of disposition, which stems from the formalized understanding of "litigation claim", the misinterpretation of the adding of "independent litigation claim" in the trial of the second instance, and the denial of parties’ later right of action in judicial practice. By construing "the change of litigation claim" in Article 35 Paragraph 1 of the "Evidence Regulations" as the change of subject matter of action, classifying the change of litigation claim based on the same fact or due to the change of situation as "non-independent litigation claim", and adding elucidation of the right of action to adjudicative documents, elucidation of the change of litigation claim can meet the requirements of the principle of disposition and the principle of neutrality of judges to a certain extent. The purpose of Article 35 Paragraph 1 of the "Evidence Regulations" should be limited one-time settlement of disputes. In other words, the scope of parties’ claim and the claim of essential fact should be regarded as the basis of elucidation. This not only provides a uniform standard for the elucidation of the change of litigation claim, but also achieves a balance between the self-determination of the parties and the one-time settlement of disputes under the precondition of implementing the principle of disposition and the principle of neutrality of judges.