The first opinion is that when the cause of action is inconsistent with the facts found in the trial, the court will directly change the cause of action in the judgment document according to the facts found in the judgment, that is, directly change the cause of action by closing the case.
The second opinion is that according to Article 35 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, the court exercises the power of interpretation according to law, explaining the legal relationship of the dispute in this case to the parties, that is, the employee's salary dispute should be based on the existence of employment relationship. Although the cause of the case was identified as an employee salary dispute at the time of filing, after the case entered the trial procedure, the facts ascertained by both parties through evidence, cross-examination and trial did not exist in the employment relationship. In view of the fact that there is no employment relationship in this case, the cause of action of this case should be determined as a dispute over the right to life, health and body, and whether the plaintiff's legal relationship and litigation request in this case should be changed. If the parties change their claims, the court will re-specify the time limit for the parties to provide evidence according to the provisions of Article 35 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings.
The author agrees with the second opinion. The reasons are as follows: 1. The exercise of the power of interpretation by the court is conducive to the parties to better claim their rights and better protect their litigation rights. 2. The trial of the court is not only to deal with the contradictions between the parties, but also a window for legal publicity. The court exercises the power of interpretation according to law and expounds the legal relationship and relevant legal provisions, which can make the nature of the case more clear and help solve the differences of legal understanding between the parties on the facts of the case.