摘要： 在诉讼标的旧实体法说理论框架内，基于“同一事实”产生的数个实体请求权成立数个诉。请求权之间差异化的相互关系，导致产生不同的诉的客观合并形态：其一，请求权竞合时，应区分律师代理与本人诉讼分别设立预备合并与选择合并的程序构造，现行规范割裂了请求权竞合的程序构造与其实体属性之间的协调关系，错误地否定了请求权竞合时诉的客观合并形态，强制其为单一之诉；其二，《民诉法解释》第247条为实践中出现的客观预备合并之诉提供了正当依据，应当肯定客观预备合并的合法性，并在此基础上鼓励适用；其三，对于有紧密事实牵连的单纯合并，如果在诉讼标的识别上采用“同一事实”标准，则导致由单纯合并向强制合并的转化，因此应将“同一事实”标准严格限定于旧实体法说无法识别实质性重复诉讼时。

关键词: 客观合并, “同一事实”, 请求权竞合, 预备合并, 强制合并

Abstract: According to the theory of traditional substantial law, several claims resulting from the same occurrence constitute several independent suits. The diverse relationships among the claims determine various forms of aggregation of subject matter of claims in the procedure. Firstly, the procedural construction of concurrence of claims should be preliminary aggregation when there is a lawyer or selective aggregation when there is not. Current regulations ignore the consistency between the procedural construction and substantial nature when concurrence happens, which leads to an outcome of rejecting aggregation of claims. Secondly, taking into consideration that the preliminary aggregation has already occurred in practice, and Article 247 of Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law has proved its legitimate basis, we should make effort to encourage the application of preliminary aggregation. Thirdly, as to the aggregation of claims which have a tight factual relation, a simple aggregation might turn to a compulsory one because of choosing“one occurrence”test, so we should confine the use of such test only when traditional test cannot tell real repetitive litigations.

Key words: Aggregation of Subject Matter of Claims, Same Occurrence, Concurrence of Claims, Preliminary Aggregation, Compulsory Aggregation