Abstract: Due to the same reasons, different types of lawsuits are inherently linked to each other.This connection requires attention to the institutional arrangements of this relationship.The current system has also made institutional responses to the handling of this relationship.The same cause for different type lawsuits mainly occur in the two civil litigation fields of public interest lawsuits and private interest lawsuits, as well as representative lawsuits and individual non-representative lawsuits.These two types of same cause for different type lawsuits have related institutional relationships.
The arrangements vary slightly due to the different types of lawsuits.In the case of public interest litigation, the application of private interest litigation to the effective judgments of public interest litigation is characterized by a fact-proof discount.This discount for evidence is not an expansion of the validity of the public interest litigation judgment, but rather the proof benefit of the effective judgment as a proof document.In the case of representative litigation, it is manifested as the application of individual non-representative litigation to the effective judgments of representative litigation.Due to the characteristics of public interest litigation and representative litigation, in the application of effective judgments, generally, private interest litigation is applied to the effective judgments of public interest litigation, and non-representative litigation is applied to the effective judgments of the representative.The converse does not necessarily hold.After non-representative litigation applies the effective judgments of representative litigation, the litigation should be terminated in the form of a judgment.This judgment is the basis for the rights holder to apply for enforcement and when the same type of litigation and different types of litigation are carried out concurrently, whether private interest litigation and non-representative litigation should be suspended can be decided by the court based on specific circumstances.Based on the necessity of having a discretionary decision for litigation suspension, the Civil Procedure Law can adjust the relevant provisions on litigation suspension and add provisions for the court's discretionary suspension.

Key words: PublicInterest Litigation, Representative Litigation, Non-testimonial Effect, Suspension of Procedural Validity in Litigation, Res Judicata

摘要： 同因不同类诉讼之间因为相同原因使其有了特定的联系。这种联系使得人们必然要关注这一相关关系的制度安排。现行制度也对这种关系的处置作出了制度回应。同因不同类诉讼主要存在于公益诉讼与私益诉讼、代表人诉讼与单行的非代表人诉讼这两个民事诉讼领域之中。这两类同因不同类诉讼相关关系的制度安排因为诉讼类型不同,制度设计略有不同。在公益诉讼的情形下,私益诉讼对公益诉讼生效裁判的适用体现为事实免证优惠。这种免证优惠并非基于公益诉讼判决效力的扩张,而是生效判决作为证明文书的证明效益;在代表人诉讼的情形,则体现为单行非代表人诉讼对代表人诉讼生效裁判的适用。基于公益诉讼、代表人诉讼的特性,在生效裁判的适用上,一般为私益诉讼对公益诉讼生效裁判的适用,非代表人诉讼对代表人生效裁判的适用,不能倒置适用。非代表人诉讼适用代表人诉讼生效裁判后,应以判决的形式终结诉讼,在有给付义务的情形下,该判决即是权利人申请强制执行的根据。当同因不同类诉讼并行时,私益诉讼及非代表人诉讼是否中止,法院可根据具体情形考量决定。基于存在诉讼中止裁量决定的必要性,民事诉讼立法可调整关于诉讼中止相关规定,增加法院裁量中止的规定。

关键词: 公益诉讼, 代表人诉讼, 免证效力, 诉讼中止, 既判力