论民事诉讼中“新事实”的认定
On the Identification of “New Facts” in Civil Litigation

我国《民诉法解释》第248条规定了裁判生效后若发生“新事实”当事人可以再诉，但目前我国司法实践中对“新事实”的认定较为混乱，其重要成因是再诉发生“新事实”的条件与再审存在“新证据”的条件在部分情况下不易区分。通过分析，两者在性质、目的、客体方面均存在差异，由此可以提出民事诉讼中“新事实”认定的体系化进路，即应当在立案审查阶段依职权作为“诉讼要件”审查，以“后诉中案件是否客观上发生变化”的客观认定标准作为根本判断标准，并结合“前诉中当事人是否又发现的可能”的主观认定标准综合判断，在认定不清时考虑“程序事实群”和诚实信用原则，以此兼顾公共利益和当事人诉权等多样的诉讼价值。
Article 248 of the Judicial “Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law” of China stipulates that if a “new fact” occurs after the judgment takes effect, the parties may file a lawsuit again. But at present, the determination of “new facts” in China’s judicial practice is rather confusing, and the important reason for this is that the conditions for the occurrence of “new facts” in the retrial and the conditions for the existence of “new evidence” in the retrial are not easy to distinguish in some cases. Through analysis, there are differences between the two in terms of nature, purpose, and object, so it can be proposed that a systematic approach to the determination of “new facts” in civil litigation should be proposed, that is, the “procedural fact group” and the principle of good faith should be considered ex officio in the case filing and review stage, and the objective determination standard of “whether the case in the subsequent litigation has objectively changed” should be taken as the fundamental judgment standard, and the subjective determination standard of “whether the parties in the previous litigation have discovered the possibility again” should be comprehensively judged, and the “procedural fact group” and the principle of good faith should be considered when the determination is unclear. In this way, it takes into account the various litigation values such as the public interest and the parties’ right to sue.