English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Article 247 of the Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law stipulates the prohibition of repeated suits, but it only refers to the narrow prohibition of repeated suits. Its identification elements are "the same parties, the same subject matter of claims and the same requests of the lawsuit". However, there is a widespread phenomenon in judicial practice that the court rejects the latter lawsuit by using the element “the requests in the latter lawsuit essentially deny the judgement in the former lawsuit”. Through the analysis of legal hermeneutics, this element can be used when the former lawsuit is in proceeding and should be understood as "if the latter lawsuit is made, the judgement of latter lawsuit may deny the judgement of the former lawsuit". Therefore, Article 247 of the Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law establishes the broad prohibition of repeated suits. The identification element of broad prohibition of repeated suits should be that the main points of contention of the two lawsuits are the same. With regard to the treatment of the broad repeated suits, the latter court can directly reject it, but should fulfill the obligation of “addition of lawsuit, alteration of lawsuit or counterclaim can be put forward in the former lawsuit” to the parties.

journal of politics and law

On the Establishment and Application of Broad Prohibition of Repeated Suits in Chinese Law – With “The Requests in the Latter Lawsuit Essentially Deny the Judgement in the Former Lawsuit” as the Object