[数千元~数亿元案子的当事人都想问的问题] 我和对方谈好了，要撤诉吗？

mingmu888 2017-12-18

展开全文

热烈庆祝本公号开通原创功能，开通后首篇必须是零八卦的满满干货贴！我们以最高人民法院指导性案例第2号为引子来看一下，官司打了一半，双方谈好了和解方案，要不要撤诉的问题。

一、指导性案例第2号

一个叫吴梅的人经营着一家废品收购站，收购许多旧书，一家叫四川省眉山西城纸业有限公司的造纸厂需要回收旧书用于造纸，吴梅就将其收购来的旧书一批一批地全部卖给了这家造纸厂。结果，这家造纸厂先后欠下吴梅251.8万元货款未能支付，吴梅便将造纸厂告上了法庭。

因为造纸厂当初签下了251.8万元的欠条，所以本案事实非常清楚，很快一审法院判决造纸厂偿还“本金+逾期利息”。造纸厂不服上诉，在二审期间，造纸厂和吴梅私下签订了《和解协议》，约定了新的“本金”还款时间表，同时造纸厂承诺撤回上诉，作为代价，吴梅承诺放弃“逾期利息”。

随后，二审法院裁定准许造纸厂撤回上诉。然而，造纸厂在撤回上诉后并没有按照《和解协议》约定的新时间表偿还本金，此时，二审期间的《和解协议》修改了一审判决的内容，一审判决是否有效？吴梅究竟有没有权利主张她已经在《和解协议》放弃的“逾期利息”？对于“本金”部分，吴梅究竟要就《和解协议》另行起诉，还是可以直接申请强制执行一审判决？这些问题在过去，在全国的司法实践中存在许多争议，最高人民法院通过指导性案例第2号以及指导性案例发布后在2012年第7期《人民司法》中就该案刊登的解读完美地解答了这些问题：

上诉人撤回上诉的后果是：一审判决生效，吴梅可以直接申请强制执行一审判决，无需另行起诉《和解协议》的违约；

至于执行的范围，假如《和解协议》履行完毕（即：造纸厂全额偿还了251.8万元本金），则一审判决不再执行，造纸厂根据《和解协议》无需再偿还逾期利息，但假如《和解协议》没有依约履行，则吴梅在《和解协议》中利息的放弃承诺全部失效，吴梅有权视为没有放弃过逾期利息申请强制执行一审判决中的全部内容，假如《和解协议》已经履行了一部分，则吴梅仍然可以申请强制执行全部本金和逾期利息，但已经偿还的款项在全部金额中扣除。

那么造纸厂在与吴梅谈好时，除了撤回上诉，还有别的做法吗？

要求法院出具调解书：我国法律规定，原被告达成和解的，可以将和解方案告知法院，然后由法院出具《民事调解书》，对原被告达成的和解内容进行确认，法院在二审期间出具《民事调解书》的，一审判决失效，假如造纸厂不履行《民事调解书》列明的“本金”偿还义务，吴梅无权再强制执行一审判决中的逾期利息，只能强制执行二审《民事调解书》中的“本金”部分了。

所以，在二审程序中，当你在和解后决定撤回上诉的时候，务必要三思而后行。

二、判决、调解、撤诉如何选择？

1. 如何选择，一表看懂：

2. 上表中有哪些需特别注意的吗？

在一审程序中由法院出具《民事调解书》确认双方的和解方案后，与法院径直判决不同的是，《民事调解书》一经送达即刻生效，双方都不可以上诉；

作为制裁有能力履行而拒不履行生效司法文书的最严厉手段，我国《刑法》规定了“拒不执行判决、裁定罪”，是的，请跟着笔者再念一遍，这个罪叫拒不执行“判决、裁定”罪，不是拒不执行“调解”罪，所以，假如你期待用最严厉的手段来威慑被告履行法定义务的话，也许“调解”不适合你，比如一些大型企业在知识产权维权诉讼中，对于“停止侵权”这种通过普通强制执行程序逼迫被告履行的效率极差的履行内容而言，究竟是否同意达成调解还是必须让法院判决，就经常出现误区；

作为一审程序的被告，若与原告达成了和解，可以少支付部分款项，此时通常建议采用《民事调解书》的方式结案，不要轻易听信原告允许原告通过撤诉结案，因为根据法律规定，原告在一审中撤诉的，可以重新起诉，不仅无端增加被告讼累，且若此时和解协议没写清楚少支付部分不再支付的话，被告可能面临支付了和解款项后，差额部分还要被起诉、仍然要支付的窘境；

根据最高人民法院的特别规定，二审过程中，如果上诉人是原审原告，他有两种撤诉方式，一种叫仅撤回上诉，一种叫撤回上诉并同时撤回对一审的起诉，前者的后果在本篇第一部分“指导性案例第2号”中已经详述，后者需要对方当事人的同意，但一旦经过同意，二审法院在裁定准许撤回上诉并撤回一审起诉的同时，会裁定撤销一审判决，而且与前面所讲在一审程序中撤回起诉不同的是，在这种情况下法律特别规定，原审原告不得重新起诉，也就是说原审原告没有任何生效判决可以执行且不得起诉，即：永久丧失诉权！

此外，在涉外案件中，还需要特别注意中国法院的《民事调解书》在境外法院的可执行性问题，这个问题涉及多国诉讼程序法律的规定以及多边和双边的条约，以及司法互惠原则的适用，非常复杂，笔者建议在可能涉及境外执行的案件要求法院出具《民事调解书》前咨询律师明确有关国际私法问题。

三、指导性案例第2号英文翻译 – 研究《民事调解书》的翻法

笔者的指导性案例翻译事业又来啦，笔者在翻译前试图参考一下前人的工作成果，比如著名的北大法宝，一查，实在没办法参考。比如“人民法院应予支持”，北大法宝的翻译是“should grant the application”，我的天，一个application可以被submitted、accepted或者rejected，从来没见过一个application可以被granted。

算了，还是自力更生吧。在翻译过程中，笔者遇到一个难题，《民事调解书》如何翻译呢？2016年，新加坡高等法院审理Shi Wen Yue诉Shi Min Jiu和其他被告案，该案原告申请新加坡高等法院强制执行中国法院出具的《民事调解书》，原告认为，该等文书可以在新加坡直接强制执行，被告认为不可以。双方分别聘请了关于中国法律的专家证人就这个问题作证。原告证人将其翻译成“consent judgment”（英文直译：经同意的判决），这个翻译站在原告立场非常棒，一方面直接套用西方的自有概念，拉进和西方司法环境的亲近感，同意该翻译以judgment结尾，直接将《民事调解书》的性质定性为一种“判决”，用以支持其立场。被告证人将其翻译成“mediation agreement”（英文直译：和解协议），这个翻译站在被告立场也很棒，不仅道出了《民事调解书》的出具基础，即双方必须首先达成和解，而且直接将法律文书的性质降格为了“协议”，那就不具备强制执行力了。双方就这个翻译问题展开了激烈的辩论。之后，法院的一个深谙中文的助理跳了出来，说两个证人说得都不对，他认为《民事调解书》不是判决裁定，效力有所不同，不能翻译成“judgment”，但“书”这种文件无论如何也不是协议，也不能翻译成“agreement”，所以他的结论是，《民事调解书》不是判决但具有终局性和不可上诉性，因此应当准许强制执行，他主张应当根据字面直译为“mediation paper”。该案法院一审判决准许强制执行。

虽然该案在实体上后来被告上诉得直，但法官在判决书中通篇凡是提及“调解书”的地方，全部沿用了一审的这位扫地僧助理的翻译“mediation paper”。真是个有意思的故事！

Directive Case No. 2

DISPUTE OF PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACT

(WU MEI vs. Sichuan Meishan Xicheng Paper Co., Ltd.)

Reviewed and Adopted by

the Adjudicating Committeeof the Supreme People’s Court

Promulgated on December 20,2011

KEY WORDS:

Civil Lawsuit / Settlement in Enforcement Proceeding / Withdrawal of Appeal / Non-performance of Settlement Agreement / Application for Enforcement / First Instance Judgment

RULES TO BE CITED:

During the second instance of a civil case, if both Parties have entered into a settlement agreement and then the people’s court approves the withdrawal of appeal, such settlement agreement shall be deemed as an agreement entered into out of the litigation proceeding, because the people’s court has not made a Paper of Civil Mediation based upon it. In case one Party fails to perform this settlement agreement, the other Party’s application for enforcement of this case’s First Instance Judgment shall be upheld by the people’s court.

LAWS RELATED:

Clause 2 of Article 207 of the Civil Procedures Law of the People’s Republic of China

CASE BRIEF:

The Plaintiff WU MEI is the owner of Wumei Waste Recycling Station at Dongpo District, Meishan City, Sichuan Province, engaging in the business of waste recycling. Approximately from 2004, WU MEI sold waste books to the Defendant Sichuan Meishan Xicheng Paper Co., Ltd. (“Xicheng Paper Co.”). On April 14, 2009, after reviewing the records by both Parties, Xicheng Paper Co. issued a Certificate of Outstanding Payment to WU MEI stating “up to now RMB1,970,000.00 (in words, one million nine hundred and seventy thousand YUAN) is owed to WU MEI”. On June 11 of the same year, the Parties reviewed the records of payable prices incurred thereafter, and Xicheng Paper Co. issued a Certificate of Outstanding Payment to WU MEI stating “up to now another RMB548,000.00 (in words, five hundred andforty eight thousand YUAN) is owed to WU MEI”. After urging the payment of said amounts for several times with no result, WU MEI brought a lawsuit before the People’s Court of Dongpo District, Meishan City requesting the court to order Xicheng Paper Co. to pay the sales prices RMB2.518 million and the interest accrued thereon. The Defendant Xicheng Paper Co. had no objection to the amount of RMB2.518 million owed to WU MEI.

The first instance court, after hearing this case, ruled that the Defendant Xicheng Paper Co. be ordered to pay RMB2.518 million to the Plaintiff WU MEI as well as the breach interest within ten days after the Judgment comes into effective. After the Judgment was issued, Xicheng Paper Co. appealed to the Intermediate People’s Court of Meishan City. During the second instance, Xicheng Paper Co. signed a Repayment Agreement with WU MEI on October 15, 2009, agreeing upon a repayment schedule for Xicheng Paper Co., and WU MEI waived the claim for interest. On October 20 of the same year, Xicheng Paper Co. applied to withdraw the appeal due to its voluntary entry into a settlement agreement with the counterparty. After the Intermediate People’s Court of Meishan City decided to approve the withdrawal, due to Xicheng Paper Co.’s failure to fully perform the settlement agreement, WU MEI applied to the first instance court to enforce the First Instance Judgment. The People’s Court of Dongpo District, Meishan City decided to uphold WU MEI’s application for enforcement of the First Instance Judgment. Xicheng Paper Co. applied to the Intermediate People’s Court of Meishan City to review this decision, by arguing that the original First Instance Judgment shall not be enforced.

COURT RULINGS:

The Intermediate People’s Court of Meishan City issued a Reply Letter on July 7, 2010 with the serial number of (2010) Mei Zhi Du Zi No.4 stating that “it is not improper for the first instance court to accept and enforce a judicial instrument that has come into effect, and therefore the enforcement proceeding shall be proceeded”.

COURT REASONING:

The court explained that Xicheng Paper Co. shall be aware of the legal consequence for its withdrawal of the appeal, i.e., so long as the court decided to approve its withdrawal of the appeal, the First Instance Judgment of the People’s Court of Dongpo District, Meishan City should become an effective Judgment, which could be compulsorily enforced. Although the settlement agreement entered into by the Parties on a voluntary basis during the second instance provided for the relevant rights and obligations, i.e., Xicheng Paper Co. waived its right to appeal and WU MEI waived the interest due to the entry into such agreement, however such settlement agreement entered into by the Parties out of the litigation proceeding, which was not confirmed by the people’s court in a Paper of Civil Mediation made according to law, was not compulsorily enforceable. Xicheng Paper Co.’s failure to perform the repayment obligation under the settlement agreement violated the Parties’ stipulations and the principle of good faith, therefore its request for not enforcing the original Judgment that had come into effect, on the basis of this settlement agreement entered to by the Parties, should be overruled.