《民法典》明确了多数人之债的实体类型与实体效力，对此需要相应的程序规则予以落实。然而多数人之债类型与诉讼形态之间是否存在适用上的对应关系，当前理论上未形成共识，实务处理亦存在较大差异，各实体类型并未形成稳定的程序适用路径，且实体规范与程序适用存在断裂。实体上不同债务类型内外关系的共通性与差异性，构成了多数人之债诉讼形态适用的基础，经由实体效力演绎而生的程序适用方案大大提升了程序的安定性。然而，多数人之债诉讼形态的确认不仅是由实体到程序的静态程式推论，程序动态推进中的变化亦较为多样，涉及诉讼标的、当事人适格以及判决效力等理论要素的认定，还揉杂了当事人的诉讼行为与法院的职权调整。在这样一个实体与程序交叉、理论与实务叠合的颇为复杂的问题上，寻找多数人之债与诉讼形态相对固定且合理的适用模式是本文的主旨。对此，本文将从法解释学出发，分析当前多数人之债诉讼形态的立法框架与制度体系，结合实证考察，解析多数人之债诉讼形态规范运行与理论研究中的问题，进而对比大陆法系共同诉讼与辅助参加的制度内容，完善我国诉讼形态的适用框架，并通过实体法与诉讼法的结合，寻找多数人之债不同类型与诉讼形态的交合点。

多数人之债诉讼形态的静态匹配上，多数人之债与诉讼形态各自构成了相应的理论体系。实体分类中连带之债、按份之债、补充之债以及协同之债共同形成了债之类型体系，各类型在内外关系上存在较大区别，在债的关联性上，按份之债最为独立，连带之债次之，补充之债牵连性较强，而协同之债则为不可分的共同实施。此外，实体规则的理论与价值导向需要特别考量，在特殊实体规则类型下，先诉抗辩权、代位权、撤销权的界定亦将对后续诉讼构造产生影响。而程序层面，在诉讼形态立法与实践中，共同诉讼与第三人制度在处理多重纠纷时牵连度亦有所差异，在正确认识“二分法”的弊端后，可将普通共同诉讼与必要共同诉讼予以分层，普通共同诉讼的判定应被置于诉讼前端；必要共同诉讼则应具备“合一确定必要性”，在可能产生矛盾判决时于诉讼审理中进行确认。而基于第三人制度与共同诉讼制度的差异，应当对第三人重新分类，并进行较为灵活的适用。静态匹配考虑的是制度之间的契合度，以体系化的视角研究更利于明晰多数人之债诉讼形态制度建立的基本逻辑。

在多数人之债诉讼形态的动态实施中，原告、被告以及法院在诉讼形态确定中扮演着各自的角色，并最终实现了权利配置的动态平衡。一方面，原告的选择决定了外部关系的基础，可构成单一之诉、共同诉讼或顺序诉讼。而债务人可基于管辖权异议或合并程序异议阻碍原告的诉讼行为，而在诉讼标的牵连程度较高时，法院据此获得牵连管辖或共同管辖，被告提出的异议难以被支持。其中当事人适格与诉讼标的分别从主体与客体两个层面影响了多数人之债诉讼形态的形成，并在旧实体法说的适用下，可在原有诉讼类型中增加诉讼标的牵连型的共同诉讼，前后诉之间产生预决效力与参加效力，从而实现“合一确定必要性”中避免矛盾判决的要求。另一方面，法院的职权体现于追加案外人进入诉讼，但强制追加则将突破处分原则，不利于被告的程序保障，应当予以限制。就判决效力而言，法官调整下必要共同诉讼中的判决效力将及于其他债务人，而普通共同诉讼中判决效力并不发生扩张。在这一过程中，外部关系亦影响内部关系的诉讼构造，外部单一之诉并不发生既判力扩张，但内部追偿权诉讼可能将受到预决效力的影响；而参加前诉的第三人则在追偿权之诉中受到参加效的约束，共同诉讼时则产生争点效。

厘清多数人之债诉讼的推进过程与影响因素后，根据债之牵连性的差异，按份之债与连带之债原则上均可单独起诉某一债务人，而补充之债存在单向性，协同之债则不允许单独起诉。据此，按份之债应当适用普通共同诉讼，连带之债存在合一确定的必要性，可通过类似必要共同诉讼加以处理，而补充之债则根据内部类型的划分适用普通共同诉讼或类似必要共同诉讼，协同之债适用固有必要共同诉讼。第三人制度是当事人以及法院在处分原则考量下妥协的产物，根据其功能可适用于除协同之债的其他债之类型。而在内部关系的实现上，连带之债与补充之债的内部追偿权存在差异，连带之债判决主文往往未明确追偿权，其追偿权需要通过另诉的方式处理。而补充之债一般不需要另诉解决，内部关系中追偿权的范围为补充责任人承担责任的全部，内部份额无需再行明确，故能够径直执行。

在特殊实体规则类型下，一般保证中由于先诉抗辩权性质的二重性，基于原告起诉以及一般保证人先诉抗辩权的行使，将导致诉讼构造有所不同；而在代位权诉讼中，在明晰诉讼标的为“代位请求权”后，债务人的诉讼地位可以为独立第三人（原告型），以及辅助债权人或债务人一方的辅助第三人。而撤销权的诉讼构造将视诈害行为的性质决定，当涉及转得人时，则可通过撤销权之诉与确认无效之诉合并处理。综上，无论多数人之债的基本分类还是特殊规则，均能匹配到相对固定的诉讼形态并予以适用。

The Civil Code specifies the entity type and entity effect of the plural debt, which needs to be implemented by corresponding procedural rules. However, whether there is a correspondence between the type of debt of the majority and the litigation form, the current theory has not formed a consensus, and there is also a large difference in practice, the entity types have not formed a stable path of procedural application, and there is a rupture between the substantive norms and procedural application. The commonality and difference between the internal and external relationship of different types of debt constitute the basis for the application of the majority debt litigation form, and the procedural application program deduced from the substantive effect greatly improves the stability of the program. However, the plural debt litigation form of confirmation is not only from the entity to the procedure of static program inference, procedural dynamics in the advancement of the changes are also more diverse, involving the subject matter of the lawsuit, the party eligible and the effectiveness of the judgment and other theoretical elements of the determination, but also a mixture of the parties to the lawsuit and the court’s authority to adjust. In such a cross entity and procedure, theory and practice superimposed on the complexity of the issue, looking for the majority of the debt and litigation pattern is relatively fixed and reasonable mode of application is the main theme of this paper. In this regard, this paper will start from the legal interpretation, analyze the current plural debt litigation form of the legislative framework and system, combined with empirical investigation, analysis of the majority of the debt litigation form of normative operation and theoretical research, and then compare the civil law system of common litigation and auxiliary participation in the system content, improve the litigation form of the application of Chinese framework, and through the combination of the substantive law and the litigation law, to find the different types of the debt and the litigation form of majority of the intersection of the law. The intersection of type and litigation form.

The plural debt litigation form of static match, the plural debt and litigation form each constitute the corresponding theoretical system. Substantive classification of joint and several debt, the debt, supplemental debt, and coordinated debt forms a complete system of debt types, each type of internal and external relations, there are big differences, in the debt of association, the debt is most independent of the joint and several debt, supplemental debt is more involved, and coordinated debt is indivisible and common implementation. In addition, the theory of substantive rules and value-oriented need special consideration, in special types of substantive rules, the right to pre-emptive defense, subrogation, the right to revoke the definition of the subsequent litigation structure will also have an impact. The procedural level, in the litigation form of legislation and practice, common lawsuit and the third party system in dealing with multiple disputes also has a different degree of involvement, in the correct understanding of the “dichotomy” drawbacks, can be common common lawsuit and the necessary common lawsuit to be stratified, common lawsuit should be placed in the determination of the front end of the litigation; necessary common lawsuit should be It has “the necessity of unity determination”, which is confirmed in the litigation trial when there is a possibility of conflicting judgments. And based on the differences between the third party system and the joint litigation system, the third party should be re-categorized and more flexible application. The static match is to consider the degree of fit between the system, with a systematic perspective of research is more helpful to clarify the basic logic of the majority of the debt litigation form of the establishment of the system.

In the dynamic implementation of the plural debt litigation, the plaintiff, the defendant and the court play their respective roles in the determination of the form of the action and ultimately achieve a dynamic balance in the configuration of rights. On the one hand, the choice of the plaintiff determines the basis of the external relationship and may constitute a single action, a joint action or a sequential action. And the debtor can be based on the jurisdiction of the objection or consolidation of procedural objections to hinder the plaintiff’s litigation behavior, and in the litigation subject matter of the high degree of implication, the court accordingly obtains the implicated jurisdiction or common jurisdiction, the defendant's objection is difficult to be supported. Among them, the party qualification and the subject of the lawsuit from the subject and object respectively, the formation of the majority of the debt litigation form, and in the application of the old substantive law, the original type of lawsuit can be added to the subject of the lawsuit is implicated in the common lawsuit, before and after the lawsuit has a pre-determination effect and participate in the effect, so as to realize the “unity of determination of the necessity of”. The requirement of avoiding contradictory judgments in the On the other hand, the court’s authority is reflected in the addition of outsiders to the lawsuit, but the mandatory addition will break the disposition principle, which is not conducive to the procedural safeguards of the defendant, and should be limited. As far as the effect of the judgment is concerned, the effect of the judgment in the necessary joint action under the judge’s adjustment will be extended to the other debtors, whereas the effect of the judgment in the ordinary joint action does not expand. In this process, the external relationship also affects the internal relationship of the litigation structure, the external single claim does not occur in the expansion of res judicata, but the internal right of recovery lawsuit may be affected by the pre-determination effect; and participate in the foregoing lawsuit of the third party is subject to the right of recovery lawsuit to participate in the effect of the joint lawsuit, the effect of the point of contention.

After clarifying the process and factors affecting plural debt litigation, according to the difference in the implicit nature of the debt, both joint and several debts can, in principle, be sued individually against a particular debtor, whereas supplemental debts have a unidirectional nature, and joint and several debts are not permitted to be sued individually. Accordingly, joint and several debts should be subject to ordinary common proceedings, joint and several debts, for which there is a need for unity of determination, may be dealt with by means of similar common proceedings of necessity, supplementary debts are subject to ordinary common proceedings or similar common proceedings of necessity according to their internal typology, and concerted debts are subject to inherent common proceedings of necessity. The third-party system is the product of a compromise between the parties as well as the court under the consideration of the principle of disposition, and according to its function it can be applied to other types of debts except for the concerted debt. And in the realization of the internal relationship, the joint and several debt and supplemental debt of the internal right of recovery there are differences, joint and several debt judgment main text often does not specify the right of recovery, its right of recovery need to be dealt with by way of another lawsuit. Supplementary debt generally do not need to be resolved by a separate lawsuit, the scope of the right of recovery in the internal relationship for the supplementary liable person to assume responsibility for the whole, the internal share of the internal share need not be clarified, so it can be straight to execution.

Under the special entity rule type, the general guarantee due to the nature of the dual nature of the Beneficium Ordinis, based on the plaintiff to sue as well as the exercise of the general guarantor’s Beneficium Ordinis, will lead to the litigation structure is different; and in the subrogation lawsuit, in the subject matter of the lawsuit for “subrogation”, the debtor’s litigation status can be an independent third person (plaintiff type), and supplementary third parties on the side of the supplementary creditor or debtor. The litigation structure of the right of avoidance will depend on the nature of the fraudulent act, when the transferor is involved, it can be dealt with through the combination of the right of avoidance and the confirmation of nullity. In summary, regardless of the basic classification of the plural debt or special rules, can be matched to a relatively fixed litigation form and be applied.