CAJ | 학술논문

我国的法律对既判力未做规定，在司法实践中，一般的实务工作者认为判决的既判力仍然存在，且其范围仅及于判决主文。不过由于缺乏法律的直接规定，实务工作者不能直接适用既判力处理前诉判决之效力问题，实务工作者可以据为判决的依据仅是判决的预决效力之规定。为此，必须对我国判决的预决效力进行分析，并在借鉴两大法系之通用的判决效力理论重构我国的判决预决效力制度。
아국적법률대기판력미주규정，재사법실천중，일반적실무공작자인위판결적기판력잉연존재，차기범위부급우판결주문。불과유우결핍법률적직접규정，실무공작자불능직접괄용기판력처리전소판결지효력문제，실무공작자가이거위판결적의거부시판결적예결효력지규정。위차，필수대아국판결적예결효력진행분석，병재차감량대법계지통용적판결효력이론중구아국적판결예결효력제도。
China＇s law on resjudicata did not make a provision, in judicial practice, the general practitioners think sentences adjudged force still exist, and only relates to the text of the judgment. Therefore, we must analysize our judgment anticipation effect, with the two big legal systems of criminal judgment theories, to reconstruct our judgment anticipation validity system.