虚假诉讼不是我国民事诉讼实践特有的现象,有诉讼的地方就可能存在虚假诉讼。解决虚假诉讼问题不应强调虚假诉讼问题的地域特殊性,而应当将虚假诉讼的各种情形分类,进行类型化研究。具体而言,首先,应当区分一方当事人侵害另外一方当事人权利的虚假诉讼,以及双方当事人共同侵害案外第三人权利的虚假诉讼。其次,在双方当事人共同侵害案外第三人权利的虚假诉讼中,应当区分受判决既判力拘束的案外第三人,以及仅受前诉判决事实影响的案外第三人。最后,具体讨论法律应当为受判决既判力拘束的案外第三人和仅受前诉判决事实影响的案外第三人分别提供怎样的事前救济、事后救济。我国民事诉讼法理论继受于以德国和日本为代表的大陆法系国家。本文从立法史的角度整理了日本法中虚假诉讼案外第三人救济的发展脉络,希望对我国民事诉讼法体系性解释虚假诉讼处置问题产生借鉴意义。 False litigation is not a phenomenon peculiar to the practice of civil litigation in our country. There may be a false litigation where there is a litigation. To solve the problem of false litigation should not emphasize the geographical particularity of the problem of false litigation, but should classify various situations of false litigation and carry out the type study. Specifically, first of all, one party should make a distinction between a fake lawsuit that infringes the other party’s rights and a fake lawsuit that both parties jointly infringe the rights of third parties outside the case. Second, in the false lawsuits in which both parties jointly infringe upon the rights of third parties outside the case, the third party who is bound by the judgment and the third party who is only affected by the fact of the previous court judgment should be distinguished. Finally, we will discuss in detail what kind of ex-ante and ex-post remedies the law should provide separately for third-party offenders subject to the res judicata and third-party offenders only affected by the facts of the previous case. The theory of civil procedure law in our country is inherited from civil law countries represented by Germany and Japan. This article, from the perspective of legislative history, collate the development vein of the third party relief outside Japan in the law of Japan, hoping to make reference to the systematic interpretation of the lawsuit of the false proceedings in the Civil Procedure Law of our country.