虚假诉讼作为一种民事侵权行为，长期以来并未得到应有的重视。其不仅干扰司法秩序，浪费司法资源，贬损司法权威，还会严重损害国家利益、社会公共利益以及他人的合法权益。对虚假诉讼的治理成为重要的法学理论和司法实务课题。我国《民法典》等法律中暂未对虚假诉讼侵权责任作出明确规定，《民事案件案由规定》也没有对此规定独立案由。虚假诉讼侵权责任制度的虚化现状，导致其保护被侵权人民事权益，规制虚假诉讼，维护司法秩序的价值发挥不充分。鉴于此，论文从实践出发，结合理论探讨，通过厘清虚假诉讼概念及性质，分析虚假诉讼侵权案件存在的问题及成因，探讨其侵权责任构成要件和责任形态，就完善虚假诉讼侵权责任制度提出具体方案建议，以期为立法和司法提供有益参考，实现虚假诉讼侵权责任制度对被侵权人的有力救济和对虚假诉讼的高效治理。

论文除绪论和结语外，共分五章。

第一章虚假诉讼侵权责任概述。首先，对虚假诉讼的基本概念、行为表现、侵权属性以及完善虚假诉讼侵权责任制度的正当性及必要性等问题进行了分析论证。在此基础上，指出虚假诉讼系发生于民事诉讼领域的一种妨害司法秩序的行为，在概念范围上大于诉讼欺诈，小于恶意诉讼，亦可归入广义的滥用诉权之中。虚假诉讼多发于借贷合同、婚姻财产、知识产权、民事执行等纠纷案件中，按照行为主体和行为表现的不同，可归纳为恶意串通型和单方欺诈型两大类型。虚假诉讼侵害民事权益的，构成民事侵权行为，应当承担相应的侵权责任。契合法律价值，回应现实需求，因此，完善我国的虚假诉讼侵权责任制度也就具有了应然与实然性。此外，该章对域外两大法系主要国家虚假诉讼侵权责任制度进行了比较法流考，提炼出完善虚假诉讼侵权责任制度应尊重法律文化传统、符合司法实践、注重制度系统性三点启示。

第二章虚假诉讼侵权责任的实践考察。主要借助案例数据库检索以及典型案件的筛选梳理，围绕司法实践中虚假诉讼侵权案件反映的特点及具体问题展开分析研究。近年来，虚假诉讼侵权案件呈现出案件数量上升、原告胜诉率低、调解率低、上诉率高、案件争议大的特点。在虚假诉讼侵权案件办理中存在三大类七个具体方面的疑难问题，包括概念混用现象严重、侵权属性认识不清，损害权益定性存在争议、损害赔偿标准不统一、侵权责任形态及规则不清，立案依据泛化且缺乏独立案由、法律适用过于原则等。因此，需对虚假诉讼侵权责任构成要件、责任形态等问题展开研究。

第三章虚假诉讼侵权责任的构成要件。主要围绕行为违法性、损害、过错和因果关系四个角度，对虚假诉讼侵权责任构成要件进行考察。首先，违法性要件对于明确宣示虚假诉讼行为的违法属性和准确界定虚假诉讼侵权责任制度的保护范围具有重要意义。在司法实践中对于违法性的判定应兼顾实体与程序、行为与结果两个方面。其次，区分虚假诉讼侵权造成的损害与侵害，有利于明确虚假诉讼侵权责任的承担方式和彰显虚假诉讼侵权责任的制度价值。虚假诉讼侵权损害具有与公权损害共生性、种类多样性的特点。因虚假诉讼导致的债权损害、律师费等维权损失、精神损害应明确规定为法定赔偿项目。第三，虚假诉讼侵权中过错形态为故意，既包括直接故意，也包括间接故意，对于律师等特殊主体参与的虚假诉讼，过错证明标准应放宽至间接故意。最后，虚假诉讼侵权因果关系要件，在责任成立层面适用直接因果关系说，在赔偿责任范围层面适用相当因果关系说。同时，虚假诉讼中司法机关行为并不导致虚假诉讼侵权因果关系的中断。

第四章虚假诉讼侵权责任形态。根据侵权责任形态的不同分类标准，虚假诉讼侵权责任可归入自己责任；其通常以单方责任为常态、以双方责任为补充；既包括单独责任也包括共同责任。在共同责任下，虚假诉讼侵权主要适用连带责任，不适用按份责任，但仍有不真正连带责任的适用空间。对于虚假诉讼共同侵权中的公证机构、担保公司等主体，应结合其具体服务内容、过错类型等因素，判断其侵权责任的承担方式。司法工作人员利用职权参与实施虚假诉讼的，与其他参与人构成共同侵权，承担连带责任，同时符合国家赔偿条件的，应赋予被侵权人对于救济方式的选择权。

第五章虚假诉讼侵权责任的制度完善。鉴于虚假诉讼侵权责任的特殊性，在制度完善中应注意坚持私权救济与诉权保障相平衡和侵权属性一般性与特殊性相兼顾的两大原则，将虚假诉讼侵权作为一类特殊的一般侵权行为进行规制。同时，参考民法典立法过程中对虚假诉讼侵权责任制度的探索成果，拟提出完善的目标为：从近期来看，可采取“《民法典》一般侵权责任条款＋司法解释”的模式，以及增加虚假诉讼损害责任纠纷民事案由等方式完善虚假诉讼侵权责任制度；从长远来看，期待将虚假诉讼侵权纳入到《民法典》中单独予以规定。同时，需要注意的是，在司法实践中，应明确虚假诉讼侵权责任构成要件及共同侵权责任的认定规则。另外，还需要完善虚假诉讼侵权责任制度与其他程序的协调对接，建立健全支持起诉、反诉受理、识别预警等机制，畅通虚假诉讼侵权救济渠道，形成虚假诉讼治理制度合力。  

总之，虚假诉讼侵权责任制度的完善将改善被侵权人维护自身合法权益的环境，实现受损权益的及时修复，同时增强虚假诉讼治理的完整性和系统性，有利于维护司法公正和司法权威，提升社会诚信水平，促进法治化营商环境建设。

False litigation, as a form of civil infringement, has not received the attention it deserves for a long time. It not only disrupts judicial order, wastes judicial resources, and undermines judicial authority, but also seriously damages national interests, social public interests, and the legitimate rights and interests of others. The governance of false litigation has become an important legal theory and judicial practice topic. There is currently no clear provision on the liability for false litigation infringement in laws such as the Civil Code of China, and the Provisions on the Causes of Civil Cases do not provide independent causes of action for this. The virtualization of the system of liability for infringement in false litigation has led to insufficient value in protecting the rights and interests of the infringed people, regulating false litigation, and maintaining judicial order. In view of this, the paper starts from practice, combines theoretical exploration, clarifies the concept and nature of false litigation, analyzes the problems and causes of false litigation infringement cases, explores the elements and forms of infringement liability, and proposes a comprehensive plan for improving the system of false litigation infringement liability. The aim is to provide useful reference for legislation and justice, and to achieve effective relief for the infringed party and efficient governance of false litigation infringement liability system.

The paper is divided into five chapters, in addition to the introduction and conclusion.

Chapter 1 Overview of Tort Liability for False Litigation. Firstly, the basic concepts, behavioral manifestations, infringement attributes of false litigation, as well as the legitimacy and necessity of improving the liability system for false litigation infringement, were analyzed and demonstrated. On this basis, it is pointed out that false litigation is a behavior that disrupts judicial order in the field of civil litigation. In terms of conceptual scope, it is greater than litigation fraud and less than malicious litigation. It can also be classified as a broad abuse of litigation rights. False litigation often occurs in dispute cases such as loan contracts, marital property, intellectual property, and civil enforcement. According to the different actors and behaviors, it can be classified into two types: malicious collusion and unilateral fraud. If false litigation infringes upon civil rights and interests, it constitutes a civil infringement act and should bear corresponding tort liability. In line with legal values and in response to practical needs, it is necessary and practical to improve China's system of liability for false litigation infringement. In addition, this chapter conducts a comparative legal analysis of the false litigation tort liability systems in the two major legal systems outside the region, and extracts three inspirations for improving the false litigation tort liability system: respecting legal cultural traditions, conforming to judicial practice, and emphasizing institutional systematicity.

Chapter 2: Practical Investigation of Tort Liability in False Litigation. Mainly relying on case database retrieval and typical case screening and sorting, analyze and study the characteristics and specific issues reflected in false litigation infringement cases in judicial practice. In recent years, false litigation infringement cases have shown characteristics such as an increase in the number of cases, low success rates for plaintiffs, low mediation rates, high appeal rates, and significant disputes. There are three major categories and seven specific difficulties in handling false litigation infringement cases, including serious confusion of concepts, unclear understanding of infringement attributes, disputes in determining the nature of harm to rights and interests, inconsistent compensation standards for damages, unclear forms and rules of infringement liability, generalization of filing basis and lack of independent cause of action, and excessive principle of legal application. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on the elements and forms of liability for infringement in false litigation.

Chapter 3: The Constituent Requirements of False Litigation Tort Liability. The main focus is on examining the constituent elements of tort liability in false litigation from four perspectives: illegality, damage, fault, and causal relationship. Firstly, the elements of illegality are of great significance in clarifying the illegal nature of false litigation behavior and accurately defining the protection scope of the false litigation tort liability system. In judicial practice, the determination of illegality should take into account both entity and procedure, as well as behavior and result. Secondly, distinguishing between the damage and infringement caused by false litigation infringement is conducive to clarifying the way of assuming false litigation infringement liability and highlighting the institutional value of false litigation infringement liability. False litigation infringement damages have the characteristics of symbiosis and diversity with public rights damages. The damage to creditor's rights, lawyer's fees, and mental damages caused by false litigation should be clearly defined as statutory compensation items. Thirdly, the form of fault in false litigation infringement is intentional, including both direct and indirect intent. For false litigation involving special subjects such as lawyers, the standard of fault proof should be relaxed to indirect intent. Finally, the elements of causal relationship in false litigation infringement apply the direct causal relationship theory in the establishment of liability, and the equivalent causal relationship theory in the scope of compensation liability. Meanwhile, the actions of judicial authorities in false litigation do not lead to the interruption of the causal relationship of infringement in false litigation.

Chapter 4 Forms of Tort Liability for False Litigation. According to different classification standards of infringement liability, false litigation infringement liability can be attributed to one's own responsibility; It usually takes unilateral responsibility as the norm and bilateral responsibility as a supplement; This includes both individual responsibility and joint responsibility. Under joint liability, false litigation infringement mainly applies joint and several liability, not proportional liability, but there is still room for the application of unreal joint and several liability. For notaries, guarantee companies, and other entities involved in joint infringement in false litigation, their specific service content, types of faults, and other factors should be considered to determine the way in which they assume liability for infringement. Judicial personnel who use their power to participate in the implementation of false litigation constitute joint infringement with other participants and bear joint and several liability. If they meet the conditions for national compensation, the victim should be granted the right to choose the remedies.

Chapter 5: Improvement of the System for Tort Liability in False Litigation. Given the particularity of the liability for infringement in false litigation, attention should be paid to adhering to the two principles of balancing private remedies and litigation rights protection, as well as balancing the general and special nature of infringement, in order to regulate false litigation infringement as a special type of general infringement. At the same time, referring to the exploration results of the false litigation tort liability system in the legislative process of the Civil Code, it is proposed to improve the false litigation tort liability system by adopting the model of "general tort liability clause+judicial interpretation" in the Civil Code in the near future, as well as increasing the civil causes of false litigation damage liability disputes and other ways to improve the false litigation tort liability system; In the long run, it is expected that false litigation infringement will be separately stipulated in the Civil Code. At the same time, it should be noted that in judicial practice, the constituent elements of false litigation infringement liability and the rules for determining joint infringement liability should be clearly defined. In addition, it is necessary to improve the coordination and connection between the false litigation infringement liability system and other procedures, establish and improve mechanisms to support prosecution, counterclaim acceptance, identification and warning, smooth channels for false litigation infringement relief, and form a joint force of false litigation governance system.

In short, the improvement of the liability system for false litigation infringement will improve the environment for the infringed to protect their legitimate rights and interests, achieve timely repair of damaged rights and interests, and enhance the integrity and systematicity of false litigation governance, which is conducive to maintaining judicial fairness and authority, enhancing social integrity, and promoting the construction of a rule of law business environment.