法学家 ›› 2026, Vol. 0 ›› Issue (2): 145-159.

• 主题研讨四:案外人民事权利的司法救济机制 • 上一篇    下一篇

案外人救济之诉的现实困境与体系整合

刘哲玮   

  • 出版日期:2026-03-15 发布日期:2026-03-23
  • 作者简介:*刘哲玮,法学博士,北京大学法学院长聘副教授。

Research on the Dilemmas and Integration of the Action for Remedy of Third Parties in China

LIU Zhewei   

  • Online:2026-03-15 Published:2026-03-23
  • About author:Liu Zhewei, Ph.D. in Law, Tenured Associate Professor of Peking University Law School.

摘要: 我国民事诉讼立法经过历次修改形成了现行的三种案外人救济之诉,即执行异议之诉、案外人再审申请与第三人撤销之诉并存的制度格局。在认可现行立法方案具有民主立法原则意义上的正当性的同时,也应意识到由此导致了司法权威消解、程序功能重叠以及审判资源浪费的现实困境。为厘清各种救济程序间的关系,应当通过解释论设置明确的区分标准,将是否存在执行程序设置为形式要件,将是否可认定错误裁判损害案外人利益设置为实质要件,从而寻求案外人救济之诉的体系整合。实质要件中对案外人的损害应严格限制于诈害诉讼、履行不能及特定风险三种情形。最终,在形式与实质要件交叉而成的坐标系“四象限”中,应当分别适用案外人申请再审、第三人撤销之诉、另行起诉与执行异议之诉。

关键词: 案外人救济, 执行异议之诉, 再审, 第三人撤销之诉

Abstract: Through successive amendments to China's civil procedure legislation, the current three types of third-party remedial litigation have been established, forming an institutional pattern where the Litigation of Objection to Execution, third-party application for retrial, and Third-Party Revocation Action coexist.While acknowledging the legitimacy of this legislation in the sense of the principle of democratic legislation—as it aligns with the traditional notion of “adapting to judicial reality” and responds to the social need of cracking down on false litigation—we should also recognize the practical problems arising therefrom, including the erosion of judicial authority, overlapping of procedural functions, and waste of judicial resources.To clarify the relationships among these procedures, clear distinction criteria should be established through interpretive theory: the existence of enforcement proceedings shall serve as the formal element, and the ascertainability of an erroneous judgment infringing on the third party's interests shall serve as the substantive element—thereby accomplishing the systematic integration of third-party remedial litigation.The substantive element shall be strictly limited to three scenarios: fraudulent litigation, impossibility of performance, and specific risk.It is noteworthy that, regarding the third scenario (specific risk), judicial practice and the Interpretation on Litigation of Objection to Execution have restricted the circumstances applicable to third-party applications for retrial, making its scope formally narrower than that of the Third-Party Revocation Action.Ultimately, within the coordinate “four quadrants” formed by the intersection of formal and substantive elements, the third-party application for retrial, Third-Party Revocation Action, institution of a separate lawsuit, and Litigation of Objection to Execution shall be applied respectively.

Key words: Remedy for Third Parties, Litigation of Objection to Execution, Retrial, Third-Party Revocation Action