摘要： 最高人民法院《批复》(法释\[2011\]2号)否定了民事判决债权受让人的再审申请主体资格。但其与依据“当事人恒定主义”和“诉讼承继主义”两种立法体例所作的基础性论证不符，所谓“从平衡各方当事人利益及维护诉讼顺利进行的立场出发”的理由也不成立。一方面，按照既判力主观范围扩张的理论，受让人属既判力标准时后的利益继受主体，应为既判力主观范围所及，从而取得再审申请主体资格；另一方面，根据现行立法的“诉讼承继主义”立场，受让人应概括性地承继出让人的诉讼地位，从而取得再审申请主体资格。
关键词:
民事判决,
再审申请,
既判力,
当事人恒定主义,
诉讼承继主义
Abstract: The Rescriptum（Court Interpretation[2011]2）of the Supreme Court had negated the capacity of judgment debt assignee to apply for retrial. However, the basic demonstration on Litigant-constantism＆Liti-gant-successionism and the justifications based on balancing procedure interests of litigants to ensur the pro-ceeding of litigation are not supportable. First, according to the theory and legislation on expansion of the subjective extent of Res Judicata, as an inheritor after the standard time of Res Judicata, the judgment debt assignee shall enter the subjective extent of Res Judicata and get the capacity to apply for retrial. Second, according to the Litigant-successionism of Chinese civil procedure legislation, after having inherited the transferor’s status in litigation, the judgment debt assignee shall get the capacity to apply for retrial too.
Key words:
Civil Judgement,
Apply for Retrial,
Res Judicata,
Litigant-constantism,
Litigant-suc-cessionrsm
丁宝同. 论民事判决债权受让人之再审申请主体资格——以“民事判决效力之主体范围扩张理论”和“诉讼承继主义”为中心的立体论证[J]. 法学家, 2013(4): 133-146.
DING Bao-Tong. Research on the Capacity of Judgment Debt Assignee to Apply for Retrial:An Analysis Centering on Expansion of the Subjective Extent of Civil Judgment Effect and Litigant-Successionism[J]. , 2013(4): 133-146.