發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-17 19:43

  本文選題：即決判決 + 簡易程序�。� 參考：《山東大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：即決判決(summary judgment),是英美法系國家在民事訴訟中普遍適用的一種制度,是避免訴訟或簡化審判的一項(xiàng)重要程序制度。只要申請(qǐng)人能提出有關(guān)事實(shí)、證人或?qū)＜易C人的宣誓陳述書證明案件事實(shí)確無爭(zhēng)點(diǎn),就可以適用即決判決。這樣就使那些沒有實(shí)質(zhì)爭(zhēng)議的民事糾紛在審前直接被過濾掉,不僅達(dá)到了為當(dāng)事人節(jié)省時(shí)間花費(fèi)的目的,而且能夠在保證司法公正的基礎(chǔ)上提高了司法資源的利用效率。我國目前尚未設(shè)置即決判決制度,學(xué)界和司法界對(duì)這一制度的研究十分有限,鑒于我國民事訴訟案件的迅速增加以及"案多人少"的現(xiàn)狀,在我國構(gòu)建即決判決制度有其重要的理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。在我國民事訴訟改革的過程中,簡易程序的重要性逐漸顯現(xiàn)出來,因?yàn)樵谖覈�的民事案件�?不乏簡單的沒有實(shí)質(zhì)爭(zhēng)議的案件,如民間借貸糾紛案件、損害賠償案件,雖然很多案件權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系明確,但由于督促程序本身對(duì)案件條件限制較多以至于很少能夠適用督促程序在審前過濾掉,此時(shí),英美國家的即決判決制度則給我們提供了新的考慮方向,也符合建立多元化糾紛解決機(jī)制的潮流。論文主體共分五個(gè)部分,分別從"即決判決制度的基本原理"、"英美的即決判決制度"、"引入即決判決的理論基礎(chǔ)"、"引入即決判決的現(xiàn)實(shí)基礎(chǔ)"、"我國即決判決制度的構(gòu)建"五個(gè)方面進(jìn)行論述。第一部分主要論述了即決判決制度的概念以及它的功能價(jià)值。第二部分是對(duì)英美即決判決制度的考察分析,具體為這一制度在英國和美國的產(chǎn)生與發(fā)展過程以及在這兩國的立法規(guī)定,對(duì)即決判決制度有了一個(gè)全面認(rèn)識(shí)。第三部分從三個(gè)方面論述引入即決判決的理論基礎(chǔ),分別是訴訟效益與公正原則、保障當(dāng)事人的程序選擇權(quán)原則以及費(fèi)用相當(dāng)性原則。第四部分論述引入即決判決的現(xiàn)實(shí)基礎(chǔ),具體闡述了該制度與我國督促程序可以并存,并進(jìn)一步分析了即決判決制度在實(shí)現(xiàn)案件分流,緩解訴訟壓力方面的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。第五部分是對(duì)我國設(shè)置即決判決制度的構(gòu)想,具體從結(jié)構(gòu)設(shè)置、程序設(shè)置兩方面進(jìn)行分析。
[Abstract]:Summary judgment is a kind of system widely used in civil litigation in common law countries. It is an important procedural system to avoid litigation or simplify trial. A summary judgment may be applied as long as the applicant can present the relevant facts and the affidavit of the witness or expert witness proves that the facts of the case are not contested. In this way, civil disputes without substantial disputes are filtered out directly before trial, which not only saves the time for the parties concerned, but also improves the utilization efficiency of judicial resources on the basis of ensuring judicial justice. At present, the system of summary judgment has not been set up in our country. The research on this system in academic and judicial circles is very limited. In view of the rapid increase of civil litigation cases in our country and the present situation of "more cases with fewer people", It is of great theoretical and practical significance to construct the system of summary judgment in our country. In the process of civil litigation reform in our country, the importance of summary procedure gradually appears, because in the civil cases in our country, there are many simple cases without substantial dispute, such as the case of folk loan dispute, the case of compensation for damages. Although the relationship between rights and obligations in many cases is clear, because the supervision procedure itself has so many restrictions on the conditions of the case, it is rarely possible to apply the supervision procedure to filter out the case before trial. The summary judgment system in Anglo-American countries provides us with a new direction of consideration and conforms to the trend of establishing a pluralistic dispute resolution mechanism. The main body of the thesis is divided into five parts. This paper discusses the basic principles of the summary judgment system, the British and American summary judgment system, the theoretical basis of the introduction of the summary judgment, the realistic basis of the introduction of the summary judgment, and the construction of our country's summary judgment system. The first part mainly discusses the concept of summary judgment system and its functional value. The second part is the investigation and analysis of the British and American summary judgment system, specifically for the emergence and development of this system in the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the legislative provisions in these two countries, and has a comprehensive understanding of the summary judgment system. The third part discusses the theoretical basis of the introduction of summary judgment from three aspects, namely, the principle of litigation benefit and justice, the principle of safeguarding the parties' procedural option and the principle of cost equivalence. The fourth part discusses the practical basis of the introduction of summary judgment, specifically expounds that the system can coexist with China's supervision procedures, and further analyzes the practical significance of the summary judgment system in realizing the diversion of cases and alleviating the pressure of litigation. The fifth part is the conception of setting up summary judgment system in our country, which is analyzed from two aspects: structure setting and program setting.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D915.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 章武生,楊嚴(yán)炎;論我國即決判決制度的確立[J];政法論壇;2002年06期

2 連品方;;爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)整理程序與即決判決制度的確立[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年05期

3 張亞東;;引入即決判決制度應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮的幾個(gè)問題[J];人民司法;2007年23期

4 陳賢貴;王辛;;論我國即決判決制度之構(gòu)建[J];東南司法評(píng)論;2009年00期

5 胡健佳;;美國Valero公司訴芬蘭Greeni公司案評(píng)析[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2007年01期

6 劉為勇;對(duì)在我國行政訴訟中引入即決判決制度的探討[J];南昌高專學(xué)報(bào);2005年04期

7 王文芳;;論即決判決制度與簡易程序制度[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年24期

8 龔柏華;王星;;中國北方化工公司與美國Beston化學(xué)公司貨物海損責(zé)任糾紛案評(píng)析[J];國際商務(wù)研究;2006年03期

9 李世宇;;論民事訴訟中的先行判決[J];湖北廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2009年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前1條

1 曹家東;民事訴訟應(yīng)引進(jìn)即決判決制度[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 連品方;即決判決制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

2 王少哲;論即決判決[D];河南大學(xué);2011年

3 虞萍;即決判決制度研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2006年

4 劉燕平;論即決判決制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

5 任毅;論民事即決判決制度[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

6 張萍;即決判決研究[D];寧波大學(xué);2014年

7 祁麗娜;論我國民事訴訟即決判決制度的構(gòu)建[D];安徽大學(xué);2016年

8 王碧兮;美國即決判決制度的發(fā)展歷程[D];湘潭大學(xué);2016年

9 閆靜;英美即決判決制度及對(duì)我國的啟示[D];山東大學(xué);2017年

10 曹家東;論即決判決[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：1902612