- 學位論文
家事合意裁定程序之研究－著重於與日本相當合意審判制度之比較
A Study of Agreement Ruling－Focusing on the Comparison with Consensual Judgment from Japan
摘要
2012年公布施行之家事事件法新設家事特別非訟程序，包含「合意裁定程序」及「適當裁定程序」。前者規定，於調解程序，當事人就不得處分之家事事項，固不得成立調解，倘對事件解決意思已甚接近或對於原因事實有無不爭執，則得合意聲請法院以裁定程序進行本案審理。據此，當事人就不得處分之事項雖無實體處分權，然於系爭事項紛爭性或訟爭性已低或趨近無時，容許兩造行使程序處分權、選擇權，選用簡易迅速之非訟、裁定程序，作為紛爭終局解決之方式，避免貫徹調解前置主義結果，卻仍需再進行原訴訟或非訟程序，致調解程序失其意義或有延滯程序之虞，並使家事紛爭得迅速解決，法院與當事人不須耗費勞力、時間及費用進行其他程序，既有利於程序利益之維護，亦無損於公益之訴訟經濟。本文即研究此項程序制度。 本文共計五章。第一章為緒論，簡要說明研究目的及問題意識，提示研究方法係借鏡於日本法之比較法研究，並限定研究範圍及簡述篇章架構。 第二章為日本之相當合意審判程序。其中第一節整理相當合意審判程序之制度旨趣、構造及程序要件，既介紹日本學說實務上相關見解，並釐清相當合意審判程序於日本家事事件程序法所設之程序定位。第二節說明相當合意審判程序之審理原則及程序保障，並提出日本學說實務就現行審理未於公開法庭行對審所生之違憲疑義。第三節敘明聲明不服異議程序之立法理由及其所生弊病。第四節則檢討確定審判之效力是否具既判力之爭議。 第三章為我國之合意裁定程序。其中第一節說明合意裁定程序之制度旨趣、構造及程序要件，提示合意裁定程序與一般家事非訟程序之不同，梳理我國實務學說見解上之歧異，並釐清歧異之來源。第二節敘明合意裁定程序之審理原則及程序保障，既說明採用各該審理原則之實益，並檢討作為既判力正當化根據之程序保障。第三節介紹抗告及再抗告程序。第四節則檢討確定裁定之既判力、執行力及形成力，著重於分析本質上非訟事件是否具既判力之必要性，以及合意裁定程序之程序保障是否足以作為既判力正當化根據。第五節另行簡要整理分析實務運作利用之情形。 第四章為日臺兩程序制度之比較，各節編排對應第二章日本之相當合意審判程序及第三章我國之合意裁定程序。其中第一節比較日臺兩程序制度於制度旨趣、構造及程序要件之差異。合意裁定程序之立法過程，雖借鏡日本之相當合意審判程序，然日本法上之制度旨趣及構造並無法全然運用於我國制度之解釋，各該程序要件亦不甚相同。日本學說實務已有豐富討論，而我國學說上較無討論者，如檢察官當事人適格性、得否撤回聲請等等，省思此等議題於我國合意裁定程序是否可能發生及其應如何解釋適用。第二節比較日臺兩程序制度於審理原則、程序保障之差異。合意裁定程序之程序保障更勝於相當合意審判程序，得據以作為確定裁定之既判力正當化根據。第三節比較日臺兩程序制度於聲明不服程序之差異。釐清何以我國於合意裁定程序之立法階段，即不採取聲明異議程序，藉以解決日本法上所面臨之質疑及批評。第四節則比較日臺兩程序制度於確定裁判效力之差異。先自既判力之必要性觀察，探究何類事件有賦予既判力之必要性，再結合第二節討論之程序保障程度差異，提出合意裁定程序相較於相當合意審判程序，更具賦予既判力之正當化根據，使既判力適格、必要之事項得賦予既判力，俾紛爭於一道程序徹底解決，維持法之安定性，保護當事人對裁判之信賴。 第五章為結論。歸納全文，總結前述各章所涉議題。回應第一章第一節之問題意識，就二程序制度旨趣、構造、程序要件、審理原則、不服程序及確定裁判效力所提問題，提出本文見解，嘗試解決、克服學說實務上之爭議，並重申我國合意裁定程序之特色。
並列摘要
The Family Proceedings Act was promulgated and implemented in 2012, newly established Domestic Special Non-contentious Procedure, including “Agreement Ruling Procedure” and “Appropriate Ruling Procedure”.The former stipulates during the procedure in family mediation, the parties shall not reach mediation on the family matters which aren’t subject to the disposition of the parties. However, If the resolute intention of the event is very close or there is no dispute about the transaction or occurrence, the parties may apply to the court to try the case in the non-litigation procedure. Accordingly, the parties don’t have the disposition of family non-litigation matters, but when the dispute or litigation of the matter in dispute became low or zero, it gives the parties the rights to procedural options to choose more economic, easy and rapid procedures to solve the problems, not only avoid the situation that executes the mandatory mediation but still necessary to go through the original contentious procedure or non-contentious procedure, which may cause the family mediation to lose its meaning or let procedure be settled slowly, but also let the family matters can be settled quickly, and the court and the parties do not have to spend labor, time and money on other procedures, which is not only conducive to the protection of procedural interests but also conducive to litigation economy. This thesis analyzed this procedure system. This thesis has five chapters. The first chapter is to clarify the motivation of the study and bring up questions, illustrate research methods that are based on the comparative of Japanese law, and make a brief description of the whole structure. The second chapter is the Consensual Judgment Procedure in Japan. Among them, the first part of this chapter is to sort out the institutional purport and procedural elements of the Consensual Judgment Procedure, which not only introduces the law practice and theory in Japan but also clarifies the procedural orientation of Consensual Judgment Procedure in The Family Proceedings Act in Japan. The second part of this chapter clarifies the principles of trial and the rules of procedural protection and puts forward the skeptical significance of the law practice and theory in Japan in dealing with the dispute arising from the failure to conduct the judgment in the public court. The third part of this chapter clarifies the legislative reasons and its disadvantages of the motion of the objection procedure. The fourth part of this chapter discusses that the effect of non-contentious ruling has res judicata or not. The third chapter is Agreement Ruling Procedure in Taiwan. Among them, the first part of this chapter clarifies institutional purport, constitution, and procedural elements of Agreement Ruling Procedure, prompts the differences between Agreement Ruling Procedure and the general family non-contentious procedure, sorts out the differences in law practice and theory in Taiwan, and clarifies the sources of disambiguation. The second part of this chapter clarifies the principles of trial and the rules of procedural protection, which not only states the practical benefits of the respective principles but also serves as the procedural protections for the justification of res judicata. The third part of this chapter is to introduce the procedure of protest and re-protest. The fourth part of this chapter is to confirm the res judicata, the enforcement effect, and The effect of the formation, focusing on the analysis of the necessity of res judicata and whether the procedural protection of Agreement Ruling Procedure is sufficient as the basis for the justification of res judicata. The fifth part of this chapter is to collate and analyze the utilization of law practice in Taiwan. The fourth chapter is the comparison of Agreement Ruling Procedural and Consensual Judgment Procedural. Among them, the first part of this chapter is to compare the differences in the institutional purport, construction, and procedural elements of these two procedurals. The legislative process of Agreement Ruling Procedural referred to Consensual Judgment Procedural in Japan, but the institutional purport and constitution of the Consensual Judgment Procedural cannot be fully applied to the interpretation of Agreement Ruling Procedural, and the procedural elements are not quite the same. The second part of this chapter is to compare the differences between the principles of trial and the rules of procedural protection between these two procedural. The procedural protections of the Agreement Ruling Procedure are more sufficient than the Consensual Judgment Procedure, which can be used as the basis for justifying the res judicature of the affirmative adjudication. The third part of this chapter is to compare the difference between the procedure of protest and the re-protest and the procedure of motion of the objection. To clarify why our country is in the legislative section of Agreement Ruling Procedural does not select and adopt the procedure of motion of the objection, to resolve the doubts and criticisms under the law in Japan. The fourth part of this chapter is to compare the effects of the rulings. At first, delve into the necessity of res judicata, and then analyzes what kind of events have the necessity of res judicata, and then combines the discussion about procedural protections in the second part of this chapter, and puts forward that Agreement Ruling Procedure is comparable to Consensual Judgment Procedure has more the positive basis of res judicata, the matters which has the necessity of res judicata can be granted to res judicata so that it can be solved the family matters in one procedure and maintain the stability of the law, protect the trust in the justice. The fifth chapter is the conclusion. Review the full text and summarize the topics covered in the preceding chapters. In response to the brought up questions in the first part of the first chapter, try to solve and overcome the arguments in the law practice and theory, and reiterates the characteristics of Agreement Ruling Procedure in Taiwan.