- 學位論文
婚生否認與確認親子關係存否之訴—以當事人適格為中心
The aoction to disavow presumed paternity and confirm the existence or non existence of a parentchild relation—centered on standing to bring suit
摘要
按聯合國兒童權利公約宣言所謂：「體認兒童應在幸福、關愛與理解氣氛之家庭環境中成長，使其人格充分而和諧地發展；考量到應充分培養兒童使其可在社會上獨立生活，並在聯合國憲章所揭櫫理想之精神，特別是和平、尊嚴、寬容、自由、平等與團結之精神下獲得養育成長。」，子女追求自身血統來源，已成為不容忽視的權利。因此，婚生否認制度的存在，即為解決子女受到不真實血統的婚生推定，使其得以法律救濟推翻之。 婚生否認，首重乃否認權人，即當事人適格之問題；其次為除斥期間，促使權利人盡速行使其權利，如不符以上二要件，訴訟即無法提起。取而代之，是否得改以確認親子關係存否訴訟，解決子女與推定生父血統關係不明的問題。然而，早於司法院釋字第587解釋做成前，學說與實務判決即有討論，正反兩派立場皆有。近年來(2016年以後)，否認權人逾越婚生否認除斥期間而提起家事事件法第67條確認親子關係存否之訴，新進學說與實務判決認可提起此訴訟並以：「原告之主張予以實體法評價之結果，並不足以導出訴訟聲明或訴訟標的法律關係」，而為原告實體敗訴判決。該見解不同與以往立場鮮明的肯定、否定見解，表面上看似調和了實體法顧慮與當事人的訴權，實際上並未察覺原告(否認權人)所提之訴訟係欠缺訴之利益，從程序法的方面考量，更不妥當。 最後，婚生否認與確認親子關係存否之訴兩者競合問題，本文將過往之論點彙整後再提出新進論點加以融整，說明法院自始應駁回原告之訴，而非實體審判。礙於現行婚生推定與否認制度之立法皆有不足，根本之道乃修法，而非司法造法，為特定個案作出違反法律邏輯的判決。期許能藉著本論文的淺見，督促未來法院作出合乎法律邏輯的判決，並提供修法的參考。
並列摘要
According to preamble of Convention on the Rights of the Child： ' Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. ', child pursue their own consanguinity has become a right that cannot be ignored. Therefore, the action to disavow presumed paternity is a means to legal relief for not real presumption of legitimacy. Refer to the action to disavow presumed paternity, the primary legal requirements is denier, realated to standing；the secondary is premption, that urges denier can perform his/her right as soon as possible. Without these two legal requirements, the suit cannot be brought. Instead, confirm the existence or non existence of a parentchild relation can be borught or not. However, before Taiwan Judical Yung Interpretation No. 587 be announced, theories and judgments have already discussed this issue, include pros and cons. In recent years(after 2016) , while denier bring the suit of confirm the existence or non existence of a parentchild relation(Family Proceedings Act,code.67) after the time of premption, the brand new theories and judgments cofirm it, and said： ' with the rule of substantive law from court, the declare from plantiff cannot dirive form his/her subject matter of action ' , receive the judgment against the plaintiff. This contention is different from passing pros and cons , it looks like reconcile the rule of substantive law and klagrecht of dinier ostensibly, in fact, it obviously breaks the rule of procedural law, because the litigation is lack of interest of action . At last, the concurrence of two litigations from the above, this thesis combines passing contention with brand new contention, and explains why court should reject the plantiff ’s action instead of judgment on the merits. Because of Presumption Of Legitimacy and Disavowal Of Legitimacy’s system are imperfect in Taiwan legislative system, to answer this question (concurrence or not) , the fundamental way is amending the law instead of judicial legislation which enters case judgment in illegal logic. With superficial view of this thesis, we can look forward to legal judgment entered by court and providing amendments in the future.