Trigger this skill when an AI agent, in generating, reviewing, or revising any legal text (including but not limited to contracts, pleadings, legal opinions, judicial documents, statutory commentaries, legal memoranda, etc.), must ensure that legal terminology is accurate, unambiguous, and consistent with legal stylistic requirements. Trigger scenarios include:
1. Drafting or revising legal instruments and needing to select correct legal terms;
2. Reviewing legal text and finding nonstandard, confused, or ambiguous terminology;
3. Converting everyday language into standardized legal expression;
4. Translating or aligning Chinese and foreign legal terms;
5. The user expressly requests terminology standardization of legal text;
6. Precisely defining or explaining legal concepts.
This skill is a foundational atomic capability for legal writing and runs through all legal-text production stages.
Trigger this skill when an AI agent, in generating, reviewing, or revising any legal text (including but not limited to contracts, pleadings, legal opinions, judicial documents, statutory commentaries, legal memoranda, etc.), must ensure that legal terminology is accurate, unambiguous, and consistent with legal stylistic requirements. Trigger scenarios include:
1. Drafting or revising legal instruments and needing to select correct legal terms;
2. Reviewing legal text and finding nonstandard, confused, or ambiguous terminology;
3. Converting everyday language into standardized legal expression;
4. Translating or aligning Chinese and foreign legal terms;
5. The user expressly requests terminology standardization of legal text;
6. Precisely defining or explaining legal concepts.
This skill is a foundational atomic capability for legal writing and runs through all legal-text production stages.
Generation, review, revision, and translation of all legal texts
Core Objective
Ensure legal terminology is accurate, unambiguous, and consistent with legal stylistic norms
Input
Text segments containing (or that should contain) legal terminology
Output
Terminology-standardized text, with a terminology correction note
Upstream Dependencies
Basic familiarity with the relevant area of law
Downstream Capabilities
Contract drafting, pleading writing, legal opinion writing, statutory commentary, and all other legal writing capabilities
Risk Level
High (terminology errors may cause defects in legal effect, distorted rights and obligations, or loss of litigation)
II. Legal Disclaimer
Important notice: This skill file provides only operational guidance on standardized legal terminology for AI agents and does not constitute legal advice. Final confirmation of legal terms shall be based on currently effective statutes and regulations, judicial interpretations, and official terminology standards. In legal instruments involving major rights and interests, terminology use should be reviewed and confirmed by a practicing lawyer. Different jurisdictions and different branches of law may use different terms for the same concept; the agent should select appropriate expression according to the specific context.
III. Core Concepts
3.1 What Is Standardized Legal Terminology
Standardized legal terminology means using, in legal texts, professional vocabulary and fixed expressions recognized by the legal community and having determinate legal meaning, so as to achieve precision, rigor, and uniformity of legal texts.
3.2 Three Dimensions of Standardized Expression
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Three Dimensions of Standardized Legal Terminology │
├───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┤
│ Accuracy │ Consistency │ Formality │
│ (Accuracy) │ (Consistency)│ (Formality) │
├───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│ Term meanings │ Same concept │ Conform to │
│ correspond │ uses the same│ solemn, │
│ precisely to │ term within │ rigorous │
│ legal rules; │ the same │ legal-document│
│ no ambiguity │ text; do not │ style; avoid │
│ │ freely swap │ colloquial or │
│ │ near-synonyms│ literary tone │
└───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┘
3.3 Hierarchy of Sources for Terminology Norms
The normative force of legal terms shall be determined by the following priority:
Priority
Source
Notes
1
Original text of statutes and regulations
Terms used in the Constitution, laws, and administrative regulations have the highest authority
2
Judicial interpretations
Terms in judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate
3
Official terminology standards
E.g., legal terminology norms in national standards such as GB/T 15834
4
Authoritative legal scholarship
Prevailing expressions in mainstream textbooks and legal dictionaries
5
Judicial practice conventions
Expressions long and stably used in judicial documents
3.4 Core Principles of Terminology Standardization
Statutory-priority principle: Where statutes and regulations provide express wording, that statutory wording must be used
Identity principle: Within the same text, the same concept is expressed by only one term
Precision principle: The extension and intension of a term must fully match the legal concept referred to
Context-fit principle: The same term may have different meanings in different branches of law; choose according to context
Temporal-validity principle: Terms must remain consistent with currently effective law; note terminology changes from statutory revisions
IV. Core Terminology Standardization Comparison Tables
Right is enjoyed by private subjects; power is exercised by public authorities
40
法人 / 法人代表 / 自然人
Use separately
Civil Code Art. 57 et al.
A legal person is an organization, not a natural person; do not equate a legal person with its responsible person
41
侵权 / 违约
Use separately
Civil Code, Tort / Contracts Parts
Different claim bases and constitutive elements
42
抗辩 / 抗辩权
Use separately
Jurisprudence / Civil Code
Defense is broad defensive pleading; right of defense is a specific right to resist a claim
43
追诉时效 / 诉讼时效
追诉时效 (limitation for prosecution) (criminal) / 诉讼时效 (limitation of actions) (civil)
Criminal Law Art. 87 / Civil Code Art. 188
Belong to different branches of law; must not be mixed
44
赔偿 / 补偿
赔偿 (compensation / damages for wrong) (unlawful act) / 补偿 (compensation for lawful act) (lawful act)
State Compensation Law / Land Administration Law, etc.
赔偿 is based on unlawfulness; 补偿 is based on loss caused by a lawful act
45
法律 / 法规 / 规章
Use by hierarchy of effect
Legislation Law
Laws (NPC and Standing Committee), administrative regulations (State Council), rules (ministries / local governments)
46
应当 / 必须 / 可以
Use by nature of the norm
Legislative drafting norms
“应当” is obligatory; “可以” is empowering; “必须” is the strongest tone
47
以上 / 以下 / 以内
Clarify whether the stated number is included
Civil Code Art. 1259; Criminal Law Art. 99
In criminal and civil law, “以上,” “以下,” and “以内” ordinarily include the stated number
48
日 / 工作日 / 自然日
Use expressly
Various procedure laws
Period calculation differs; must specify
49
生效 / 施行 / 公布
Use separately
Legislation Law
Promulgation ≠ implementation ≠ taking effect; time points may differ
50
知识产权 / 著作权 / 专利权 / 商标权
Use by specific type
Civil Code Art. 123
Intellectual property is the umbrella concept; the specific right type must be stated
V. Complete Workflow
5.1 Terminology Standardization Process
Input: Legal text to be processed
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 1: Identify legal terms │ ← Scan all legal terms and suspected terms in the text
│ and potential terminology issues │
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 2: Determine legal field │ ← Judge the branch of law (civil / criminal / administrative / commercial, etc.)
│ and document type │ ← Judge document type (contract / pleading / judgment / opinion, etc.)
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 3: Verify terms one by one │ ← Verify accuracy against the source hierarchy
│ │ ← Check whether terms match the branch of law
│ │ ← Check whether term meanings fit the context
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 4: Consistency check │ ← Check whether the same concept uses the same term throughout
│ │ ← Check whether first appearance has necessary definition / explanation
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 5: Style-fit check │ ← Check whether terminology expression conforms to legal style
│ │ ← Eliminate colloquial, literary, and vague expressions
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 6: Temporal-validity check │ ← Confirm terms are consistent with currently effective law
│ │ ← Watch for obsolete terms from repealed laws
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 7: Output standardized text │ ← Generate corrected text
│ and correction notes │ ← Attach terminology correction comparison table and reasons
└─────────────────────┘
5.2 Detailed Operational Guidance for Each Step
Step 1: Identify Legal Terms and Potential Issues
Operational points:
Scan the text sentence by sentence; mark all professional legal terms
Pay special attention to these high-risk areas:
Party designations (plaintiff / defendant / applicant / respondent, etc.)
Liability forms (joint and several / several / supplementary, etc.)
Right types (ownership / use right / creditor’s right / real right, etc.)
Procedural terms (jurisdiction / service / periods / limitation, etc.)
Quantity and time-limit expressions (above / below / day / business day, etc.)
Mark everyday language that may need conversion into legal terms
Step 2: Determine Legal Field and Document Type
Operational points:
Judge the branch of law from the text content, because the same word may mean different things in different branches
Example: “追诉时效” belongs to criminal law; “诉讼时效” belongs to civil law
Example: “罚金” belongs to criminal law; “罚款” belongs to administrative law
Determine stylistic requirements by document type
Judicial documents: Strictest; must fully follow statutory terminology
Contract texts: Strict, but parties may agree on short forms
Legal opinions: Relatively strict; explanatory wording may be used appropriately
Legal memoranda: Relatively flexible, but core terms must still be standardized
Step 3: Verify Terms One by One
Verification checklist:
□ Does the term have an express formulation in statutes and regulations?
→ Yes: Must use the statutory formulation
→ No: Use judicial-interpretation or prevailing-doctrine formulation
□ Is the term’s meaning correct in the current branch-of-law context?
→ Example: “违约金 (liquidated damages)” should not appear in a criminal context
□ Does the term’s extension precisely match the referent?
→ Example: Do not use “担保 (security)” generically in place of “抵押 (mortgage)”
□ Is the term used in currently effective law?
→ Example: Do not continue using “经济合同 (economic contract)” (repealed)
□ Does the term have common objects of confusion?
→ Check one by one against the terminology comparison tables in Section IV of this skill
Step 4: Consistency Check
Operational points:
Build an in-text terminology index; ensure the same concept uses the same term throughout
If a short form is needed, define it expressly on first appearance
Incorrect example: Party A (hereinafter the "Lessor") ❌
Correct example: Lessor Zhang San (hereinafter "Party A") ✅
完全 / 限制 / 无民事行为能力 (full / limited / no capacity for civil acts)
Civil Code refinement
Two-year limitation of actions
Three-year limitation of actions
Civil Code Art. 188 amendment
Step 7: Output Standardized Text and Correction Notes
Output should include two parts:
Full corrected text
Terminology correction comparison table (see output format templates)
VI. Verification and Screening Rules
6.1 Five-Step Method for Verifying Terminology Correctness
Step 1: Statutory verification
→ Look up the statutory formulation of the term in currently effective statutes and regulations
→ If found, the statutory formulation controls
Step 2: Context verification
→ Confirm the term’s meaning in the current branch of law / context
→ Exclude cross-branch terminology mixing
Step 3: Collocation verification
→ Confirm whether the term’s modifiers and verbs match customary legal collocations
→ Example: “承担违约责任” ✅ “负担违约责任” ⚠️ “背负违约责任” ❌
Step 4: Logic verification
→ Confirm whether the term’s logical relations in context hold
→ Example: Cannot say both “合同无效 (contract void)” and “解除合同 (rescind the contract)” in the same clause
Step 5: Audience verification
→ Confirm whether terminology use suits the target reader
→ For legal professionals: professional terms may be used directly
→ For non-professionals: a brief explanation may follow core terms
6.2 Terminology Selection Decision Tree
Need to express a legal concept
│
▼
Is there a statutory term in statutes and regulations?
│ │
Yes No
│ │
▼ ▼
Use the statutory term Is there a common formulation in judicial interpretations?
│ │
Yes No
│ │
▼ ▼
Use the judicial- Is there a recognized term in legal doctrine?
interpretation │ │
formulation Yes No
│ │
▼ ▼
Use the doctrinal Construct a descriptive expression
term and add an explanatory note
VII. Output Format Templates
7.1 Terminology Correction Report Template
## Legal Terminology Standardization Correction Report
**Text type:** [Contract / Pleading / Legal opinion / Other]
**Field:** [Civil / Criminal / Administrative / Commercial / Other]
**Correction date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Number of corrections:** [N]
### Correction Comparison Table
| No. | Location | Original Expression | Corrected Expression | Correction Type | Reason | Severity |
|------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| 1 | Art. X | XXX | XXX | Terminology error | XXX | 🔴 Critical |
| 2 | Art. X | XXX | XXX | Imprecise term | XXX | 🟡 Warning |
| 3 | Art. X | XXX | XXX | Style defect | XXX | 🔵 Suggestion |
### Correction Type Notes
- **Terminology error:** Wrong legal term used; may affect legal effect
- **Imprecise term:** Terminology insufficiently precise; may create ambiguity
- **Terminology confusion:** Near-synonyms with different meanings mixed
- **Obsolete term:** Old term from a repealed law used
- **Style defect:** Expression does not meet legal stylistic requirements
- **Consistency issue:** Different terms used for the same concept in the text
### Severity Notes
- 🔴 **Critical:** Must correct; otherwise may cause defects in legal effect or major misunderstanding
- 🟡 **Warning:** Recommended to correct; may create ambiguity or appear unprofessional
- 🔵 **Suggestion:** Optional correction at the stylistic-optimization level
7.2 Standardized Text Output Template
## Standardized Text
[Output the full corrected text here; mark corrections in **bold**]
---
*Note: Bold portions are terminology standardization corrections in this pass.*
VIII. Confidence Annotation System
When standardizing terminology, annotate confidence for each correction:
Confidence Level
Mark
Meaning
Applicable Scenarios
Certain
[Confidence: Certain]
Terminology correction supported by express statutory provisions
Statutory-term substitution; correction of obvious errors
High
[Confidence: High]
Supported by judicial interpretations or prevailing doctrine
Standardization of prevailing terms; style corrections
Medium
[Confidence: Medium]
Based on judicial practice conventions
Preferring among multiple acceptable expressions
Low
[Confidence: Low]
Contested or needs further confirmation
Emerging-field terms; local variations
Usage rules:
Corrections at “Certain” and “High” confidence may be executed directly
Corrections at “Medium” confidence should attach an explanation and recommend user confirmation
Corrections at “Low” confidence should be expressly marked as “suggestions” with reasons for uncertainty
IX. Common Errors and Prevention
9.1 Critical Error Table
Error ID
Error Type
Error Example
Correct Expression
Possible Consequences
Prevention
F-01
Wrong party designation
Calling someone “犯罪嫌疑人” at trial stage
“被告人 (defendant)”
Defect in document effect
Determine designation by procedural stage
F-02
Confused liability form
Writing several liability where joint and several is required
Manifestation: Understanding legal terms by everyday meanings
Example: “善意” in “善意取得 (bona fide acquisition)” ≠ moral goodness; it means “did not know and ought not to have known”
Prevention: Always take the legal definition as controlling; do not infer from everyday meaning
Trap 2: Near-Synonym Substitution Trap
Manifestation: Substituting near-synonyms for legal terms to avoid repetition
Example: Replacing “解除合同” with “取消合同” / “废除合同”
Prevention: Legal terminology does not pursue literary lexical variety; the same concept must use the same term
Trap 3: Cross-Branch Transplantation Trap
Manifestation: Transplanting a term from one branch of law into another
Example: Writing in a civil contract “甲方应受到处罚” (“处罚 / penalty” is a public-law concept)
Prevention: Confirm the term’s branch of law matches the text’s context
Trap 4: Old-Law Inertia Trap
Manifestation: Continuing to use old terms superseded by new law
Example: Continuing to use “具体行政行为” (should be “行政行为”)
Prevention: Track statutory revision developments; periodically update the terminology bank
Trap 5: Translation Calque Trap
Manifestation: Literally translating foreign legal terms into Chinese in ways that do not fit the Chinese legal system
Example: Literally rendering “consideration” as “对价” in a Chinese contract-law context
Prevention: Use corresponding terms in the Chinese legal system; add notes where necessary
Trap 6: Umbrella-Concept Substitution Trap
Manifestation: Using an umbrella concept generically in place of a specific subordinate concept that should be used precisely
Example: Using “担保” in place of “抵押” or “质押” that should be specified
Prevention: When precise expression is needed, use the most specific subordinate concept
Trap 7: Quantity-Boundary Ambiguity Trap
Manifestation: Using “以上 / 以下” without clarifying whether the stated number is included
Example: “三年以上有期徒刑”—does it include three years?
Prevention: Note the rules in different laws on “以上 / 以下” (Criminal Law expressly includes the stated number); annotate expressly where necessary
X. Special Scenario Handling
10.1 Emerging-Field Terminology
For emerging fields such as data compliance, artificial intelligence, and blockchain:
Handling strategy:
1. Prefer terms already used in statutes and regulations
→ Example: “个人信息处理者 (personal information handler)” in the Personal Information Protection Law
2. If no statutory term, use formulations in official documents
→ Example: Terms in national standards and departmental rules
3. If neither exists, use industry-prevailing terms and add a definition clause
→ Example: “For purposes of this Agreement, ‘smart contract’ means …”
4. Avoid using pure technical terms without legal definition
→ Example: Do not use “Token” directly; define it as a “digital credential” or other legally intelligible expression
10.2 Cross-Border Legal Text Terminology
Handling strategy:
1. For foreign legal concepts in Chinese legal texts, use corresponding terms in the Chinese legal system
2. If no direct counterpart, use a descriptive expression and annotate the original
→ Example: “信托受益人 (beneficiary)”
3. In bilingual contracts, specify which language version controls
4. Watch for “false friends”—terms that look similar but mean different things
→ Example: Common-law “consideration” ≠ Chinese-law “对价” (Chinese law has no such concept)
10.3 Party-Defined Custom Terminology
Handling strategy:
1. Parties may define custom terms in contracts, but must not conflict with mandatory legal provisions
2. Custom terms should be expressly defined in the contract’s “definitions” clause
3. Custom terms should not create confusion with statutory terms
→ Incorrect example: Defining “违约金” to include the meaning of “定金”
4. Recommend parenthetically annotating the legal nature after a custom term
→ Example: “服务保证金 (in the nature of a deposit / 定金)”
10.4 Plain-Language Explanation of Legal Terms
Handling strategy:
When explaining legal content to non-professionals:
1. First use the standardized legal term
2. Then provide a plain-language explanation in parentheses or a footnote
→ Example: “本案适用诉讼时效（即法律规定的起诉期限）为三年”
3. Plain-language explanation must not replace the legal term itself
4. Plain-language explanation must accurately reflect the term’s meaning and must not oversimplify into misunderstanding
XI. Quality Checklist
After completing terminology standardization, check the following items one by one:
11.1 Basic Checks
□ Are all legal terms consistent with currently effective statutes and regulations?
□ Are there obsolete terms from repealed laws?
□ Do party designations match the procedural stage / procedure type?
□ Are liability forms accurate (joint and several / several / supplementary)?
□ Are contract-validity statuses accurate (valid / void / voidable / pending validity)?
□ Are right types accurate (real rights / creditor’s rights / IP rights, etc.)?
11.2 Consistency Checks
□ Does the same concept use the same term throughout?
□ Are short forms expressly defined on first appearance?
□ Is terminology use logically consistent before and after?
□ When citing statutory provisions, are terms identical to the original text?
11.3 Precision Checks
□ Is an umbrella concept used in place of a subordinate concept that should be expressed precisely?
□ Are quantity and time-limit expressions clear (including / excluding the stated number)?
□ Is “日 (day)” specified clearly (calendar day / business day)?
□ Are amounts standardized (currency + upper/lower case numerals)?
□ Are there vague qualifiers (“大约 / 左右 / 若干,” etc.)?
11.4 Style Checks
□ Have all colloquial expressions been eliminated?
□ Have all emotionally colored words been eliminated?
□ Have all internet slang / vernacular expressions been eliminated?
□ Has the solemnity of legal documents been preserved?
□ Does use of passive / active voice conform to legal stylistic convention?
11.5 Special Checks
□ Are cross-border terms correctly corresponded?
□ Are emerging-field terms sufficiently defined?
□ Do party-defined custom terms not conflict with statutory terms?
□ Is each correction annotated with confidence?
□ Have all critical-level corrections been addressed?
XII. Complete Examples
Example 1: Simple Scenario — Contract Clause Terminology Standardization
A defense statement is submitted at the trial stage; the designation should be “被告人,” not “犯罪嫌疑人” (Criminal Procedure Law Art. 12: no person shall be determined guilty except by a people’s court judgment according to law)
🔴 Critical
2
Part One
被抓获后主动交代
归案后如实供述自己的罪行
Imprecise term + wrong characterization
Confession after apprehension is “坦白,” not “自首.” Voluntary surrender requires “自动投案” (Criminal Law Art. 67 para. 1); truthful confession after passive apprehension is “坦白” (Art. 67 para. 3)
🔴 Critical
3
Part One
自首
坦白 (if truly passive apprehension)
Terminology error
Same as above. If truly passive apprehension, voluntary surrender is not established; characterize as confession
The statutory sentencing circumstance for confession is “may be given a lighter punishment,” not “reduced punishment” (Criminal Law Art. 67 para. 3)
🔴 Critical
5
Part Two
缓期执行
缓刑
Terminology confusion
“缓期执行” usually refers to death sentence with suspension of execution (死缓); the context here should be “宣告缓刑” (Criminal Law Art. 72)
🔴 Critical
6
Part Two
悔过表现
悔罪表现
Imprecise term
The legal term is “悔罪表现” (one of the conditions for probation under Criminal Law Art. 72)
🟡 Warning
7
Part Three
附带民事赔偿
附带民事诉讼赔偿 or 民事赔偿
Imprecise term
Clarify whether incidental civil action was instituted (Criminal Procedure Law Art. 101)
🟡 Warning
8
Part Three
精神赔偿金
精神损害赔偿 (note: generally not supported in incidental civil action)
Imprecise term + legal-application issue
① Standardized wording is “精神损害赔偿”; ② Per judicial interpretation, incidental civil actions in criminal cases generally do not entertain claims for mental distress damages
🔴 Critical
9
Part Three
十万元左右
人民币壹拾万元（¥100,000.00） (or specific amount)
Style defect
“左右” is vague; amounts in legal documents must be precise and state the currency
🟡 Warning
10
Signature block
李律师
辩护人：李XX，XX律师事务所律师
Style defect
Defense statement signature block should state the defense counsel’s full name and practicing institution
“犯罪嫌疑人” → “被告人”[Confidence: Certain]
The statutory designation at the trial stage is “被告人.” This is the most basic terminology norm in criminal procedure; incorrect use severely damages the professionalism of the defense statement.
“自首” → “坦白”[Confidence: High]
The original text describes “主动交代 after being apprehended”; “被抓获” indicates non-voluntary appearance and does not meet the “自动投案” element of voluntary surrender. If counsel has evidence that Wang XX had intent to surrender and took steps to surrender before apprehension, voluntary surrender may still be established, but factual grounds must be supplemented. This correction is based on the literal meaning of the original text.
“缓期执行” → “缓刑”[Confidence: Certain]
In criminal law, “缓期执行” specifically means “death sentence with a two-year suspension of execution” (死缓), which is an entirely different institution from “缓刑” (suspension of sentence / probation). Confusing them may cause serious misunderstanding.
Handling of “精神赔偿金”[Confidence: High]
The corrected text deletes “精神赔偿金” because, under Article 175 paragraph 2 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, incidental civil actions in criminal cases generally do not support claims for mental distress damages. If the victim truly needs to claim mental distress damages, a separate civil action should be filed.
Appendix: Quick Reference Card
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ Standardized Legal Terminology · Quick Check Mnemonic ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ ║
║ 1. Check statute: Does the term have a statutory formulation? ║
║ 2. Check branch: Does the term belong to the correct branch of law? ║
║ 3. Check context: Does the term’s meaning fit the surrounding text? ║
║ 4. Check consistency: Is the same concept worded uniformly throughout? ║
║ 5. Check currency: Is the term consistent with currently effective law? ║
║ 6. Check style: Does the expression meet legal-document norms? ║
║ 7. Check precision: Is there vagueness, overbreadth, or ambiguity? ║
║ ║
║ Critical red lines (never commit): ║
║ × Mixing 犯罪嫌疑人 / 被告人 ║
║ × Confusing 定金 / 订金 ║
║ × Confusing 缓刑 / 死缓 ║
║ × Confusing 自首 / 坦白 ║
║ × 法人代表 (should be 法定代表人) ║
║ × Cross-branch mixing of 罚金 / 罚款 ║
║ × Confusing 赔偿 / 补偿 ║
║ × Confusing 诉讼时效 / 除斥期间 ║
║ ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
