Luan Mouyi and Li Moumou had a dispute over trivial matters. Luan Mouyi and Luan Mouyi are father and son. After seeing Luan Mouyi, Luan Mouyi beat Li Moumou in a dispute between the two sides, causing Li Moumou to be injured and hospitalized. On 202 1 September1day, Li Moumou sued the People's Court of Yanzhou District, Jining City on the grounds that Luan A and Luan B * * * had done harm to him, demanding that Luan A and Luan B * * * both compensate him for medical expenses, lost time, nursing expenses, hospital food subsidies and other losses of 282/KL. Because Luan Moujia denied participating in the beating of Li Moumou, the surveillance video at the time of the incident did not show that Luan Moujia had beaten Li Moumou. Yanzhou court found that Luan Mouyi was liable for the damage of Li Moumou, while Luan Mouyi was not liable. 65438+20221October 28th, Luan Moujia sued Li Moumou to the court on the grounds that Li's behavior against Luan Moujia constituted an abuse of the right to appeal and infringed on his right to reputation, requesting that Li Moumou be ordered to compensate him for the loss of his right to reputation of 50,000 yuan.
Trial situation
Yanzhou Court held through trial that after a dispute between Li Moumou and Luan Moujia and Luan Moujia occurred on June 3, 20021year, Li Moumou reported the case to the public security organ and sued Luan Moujia and Luan Moujia to the court, without making up the facts of the case or knowing that their rights and interests were not infringed, and there was no subjective fault. Li's prosecution conforms to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and is an act of legally exercising his civil rights. In the lawsuit, Luan Moujia did not provide evidence to prove that he was investigated by the public security organs and responded in court, which led to a decrease in social evaluation and a violation of his reputation. Therefore, Li's prosecution behavior does not constitute an infringement of Luan's reputation.
Referee result
Yanzhou District People's Court rejected Luan Moujia's claim according to law. After the judgment, neither party filed an appeal, and now the judgment has taken legal effect.
The judge's last words
This case mainly involves the analysis and determination of the constitutive elements of abuse of litigation right and the distribution of burden of proof.
Under the background of filing registration system, the people's court only examines the plaintiff's lawsuit in form. This measure fully guarantees the plaintiff's right of appeal, but some people abuse the right of appeal. Abuse of the right to appeal will cause damage to the other party in terms of time, money and reputation. Article 132 of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that civil subjects shall not abuse their civil rights to harm the national interests, social public interests or the legitimate rights and interests of others. The opposite party who has been infringed by the abuse of litigation rights by the parties may bring an infringement lawsuit to the people's court to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. In this case, Luan Moujia sued Li Moumou to the court, which was an abuse of the right to appeal. The judge in charge analyzed and identified the case from the perspectives of the constitutive requirements of abuse of litigation right and the distribution of burden of proof, and made a final judgment. The typical problems reflected in this case are summarized and analyzed as follows.
1, what is abuse of litigation right?
The right of action refers to the right of the parties to request the court to make a judgment according to the disputed facts, which is a basic right of citizens. Abuse of litigation right refers to the behavior that the parties know or should know that their request lacks factual and legal basis, and in order to achieve some improper purpose, they use the litigation rights endowed by law to conduct improper litigation in a legal form, with a view to pestering the court or the other party through litigation, resulting in unnecessary waste of human, financial and judicial resources.
2. Constitutive elements of abuse of litigation right and distribution of burden of proof.
From the analysis of legal nature and constitutive requirements, the abuse of litigation right is essentially a tort, which should conform to the general constitutive requirements of tort liability and apply the principle of fault liability, that is, the party who advocates the abuse of litigation right needs to prove:
(1) The actor is subjectively at fault.
Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that one of the tasks of this law is to ensure the parties to exercise their litigation rights. Therefore, if the other party thinks that the actor's litigation behavior is an abuse of litigation right, it should prove that the actor's subjective state is at fault, that the actor subjectively knows or should know that his rights and interests have not been infringed, that the evidence on which the lawsuit is filed is false, or that the actor has obviously fabricated the facts of the case. So that the actor's litigation behavior can be identified as subjective fault, which belongs to abuse of litigation right.
(2) The actor objectively abused the right of action.
The actor objectively did not exercise his litigation rights correctly, but used the litigation rights endowed by law to conduct unfair litigation in a legal form. In essence, the prosecutor does not meet the requirements of prosecution stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law. For example, the lawsuit filed by the actor has no interest in the lawsuit, or the lawsuit filed by the actor violates the principle of "ne bis in idem" or the lawsuit filed by the actor overturns the effective judgment in disguise.
(3) Abuse of litigation rights causes losses to the other party.
The other party needs to provide evidence to prove the actual losses it has suffered, such as economic losses such as attorney's fees, travel expenses, lost time, or damage to spirit and reputation.
(4) There is a causal relationship between the loss of the counterpart and the illegal behavior of the actor.
The other party also needs to prove that there is a causal relationship between the actual loss it suffered and the abuse of the right of action by the actor, which leads to the loss of necessary expenses or reputation damage of the other party.
To sum up, the principle of fault liability applies to the abuse of litigation right, and it is argued that the actor should bear the burden of proof for the four elements of abuse of litigation right. In this case, the judge in charge analyzed Li's behavior around the four elements and combined with Li's evidence, and made a final judgment. In this kind of cases, it is necessary to protect the actors' right to properly conduct litigation, but also to identify and crack down on some actors' abuse of litigation rights and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the other party from infringement.
Relevant laws and regulations
Article 1024 of the Civil Code of People's Republic of China (PRC) enjoys the right of reputation. No organization or individual may infringe upon the reputation right of others by insulting or slandering.
Reputation is a social evaluation of the moral character, reputation, talent and credit of civil subjects.
Article 165 of the Civil Code of People's Republic of China (PRC) * * * If the actor infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others through fault and causes damage, he shall bear the tort liability.
If the actor is presumed to be at fault according to the law and cannot prove that he is not at fault, he shall bear tort liability.
Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their claims.
Judge: Liu Xulong
Case writing: Li Zhenzhu