裁判遗漏不仅缘于案件审理作业的复杂性,而且产生于作为案件裁判者的法官认识水平和思维能力方面的非至上性。即使是最严谨、最认真的法官在案件裁判过程中也难免会出现诸如遗漏裁判事项这样的失误。遗漏应当裁判事项的司法裁判显然是有欠缺的、不完整的裁判,无法满足当事人和社会公众对司法公正的期待。因此必须建立相应的制度对遗漏裁判进行救济。各国民事诉讼法通常规定了民事漏判救济制度。目前我国民事诉讼法对民事漏判救济制度的规定尚不够合理、科学,不能适应民事案件裁判实践的需要,有必要进一步改革和完善。一、民事漏判的界定按照通常的理解,民事漏判是指法院在审理和裁判民事案件过程中,由于自身的疏忽,对应当裁判的事项发生遗漏,没有作出裁判的现象。民事漏判实质上是法院认为已经对全部事项进行了裁判,但实际上只对部分事项作出了裁判,对其他应当裁判的事项出现漏而未判,从而导致裁判结果不完整的情形。在大陆 The omission of referees is not only due to the complexity of the hearing of the case, but also to the non-supremacy of the judge’s cognition and ability of thinking as the case judge. Even the most rigorous and earnest judge will inevitably have errors such as the omission of referees during the course of the case. There is obviously a lack of judicial omission to misjudge the matters to be adjudicated. Incomplete judgments can not satisfy the expectation of the parties concerned and the public at large. Therefore, we must establish a corresponding system to remedy the missing judge. Civil Procedure Laws of various countries usually stipulate the civil remedy system. At present, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of our country on the civil remedies system are not yet reasonable and scientific and can not meet the needs of the adjudication of civil cases. Therefore, it is necessary to further reform and perfect it. I. Definition of Civil Disobedience According to normal understanding, the civil omission refers to the court in the process of trial and referee civil cases, due to their own negligence, omissions on the matter should be refereed, there is no judgment. In fact, the court ruled that all cases have been adjudicated, but in fact, only some matters have been refereed, and other matters that should be adjudicated have been missed and not ruled out, resulting in incomplete refereeing results. In the mainland