Abstract: In the context of the doctrine of concurrency of pursuing the consistency of ‘elements–effects’, the exercise of the right to rescind a contract by way of litigation results in the discrepancy between the effect of the private law and the state of adjudication, when the rescission effect still occurs but the lawsuit is withdrawn, dismissed due to the illegality of the lawsuit, or the claim is changed after the service of the complaint, and when the substantive judgement has not been obtained. The doctrine of concurrency does not explain the fact that the withdrawal of a claim after it has been served, as provided for in Article 54 of the Interpretation of the General Principles of Contracts, does not have the effect of a discharge. The precondition for the occurrence of the dissolution effect is the confirmation of the dissolution claim by the Court. Doctrine of concurrency has as its central criterion the equitable reciprocity of rights and obligations of entities. In China, there exist dilemmas such as insufficient entity norms supply, litigation service chaos, etc., it is more likely to result in a dissociation of the effect of the rescission from the result of the judgement and the intention of the parties. Theory of double nature of an act, combined with the theory of litigation state, embodies the litigation of attack and defence behaviour and the process of the transfer of the parties’ expectations/burden, demonstrates the parties’ deepening understanding of the content of the entity and their formation of self-responsibility, and matches the prosecution as a validity of the nature of the act of the act. When justifying the judicial interpretation, it is still necessary to pay attention to the coordination with the agreement to terminate the contract. And in the scenarios of promise and preparatory counterclaim, whether it is an agreement to terminate the contract should be judged according to the “court’s permission to withdraw the lawsuit” system and the rules of interpretation of the meaning of the expression of the substance, in order to limit the application of Article 54.