论文部分内容阅读
在《中国律师》2010年第9期(总第239期)上,笔者发表了《除斥期间不等于不变期间》一文。该文以一则真实的案例(以下简称本案)为引子,讨论了固守除斥期间为不变期间的教条将导致对个案的严重不公正的问题。在我国现行法没有规定的情况下,借用德国混合除斥期间理论,借助除斥期间可以适用诉讼时效不完成(中止)的规定,得出除斥期间不等于不变期间,在一定条件下是可变(期间)的结论。
In the “Chinese lawyer” 2010 ninth period (total number 239), the author published a “period of exclusion does not mean the same period” article. This article uses a real case (hereinafter referred to as the case) as an introduction to discuss the issue of sticking to the dogma of non-change during dismissal which will result in serious injustice to the case. In the absence of the provisions of current law in our country, borrowing the theory of period of mixed repudiation in Germany and using the provisions of the limitation of limitation (suspension) applicable to the limitation of action during the period of repulsing, it can be concluded that the period of exclusion is not equal to the period of invariance, but under certain conditions, Change (period) of the conclusion.