釋明之研究……以其證明度為中心

A Study on the "Glaubhaftmachung"……Focus on the Standard of Proof

姜世明(Shyh-Ming Chiang)

《東吳法律學報》 20卷1期 (2008/07) Pp. 61-105

https://doi.org/10.6416/SLR.200807.0061

摘要

釋明制度在民事程序法中乃用以與證明制度相區別之概念，其舉證程序中，就可利用之證據及證明度二者乃與一般證明之制度要求，不盡相同。此一相較於完全證明程序，乃呈現較簡單及快速之性質，其如何相適於追求慎重而正確裁判之民事訴訟，毋寧係此一制度在設計之初即予以考慮者。亦即，基本上，除非存在例外及合目的性事由，否則，實不應輕易將某一非法所明定之程序，解為係釋明所得適用之對象。就此，亦為一般通論所是認。
對於釋明之制度在我國民事訴訟法及非訟事件法有部分規定，對於其制度之基本法理，例如功能、可利用之證據、證明度等問題，在我國理論及實務上雖有部分討論，但若與先進國家對此領域之研究，似仍有不足之處。尤其係對於此一制度之證明度研究，在我國之研究進展，更屬有限，自有研究及補充之必要。
本文乃著眼於此，擬立基於我國既有研究基礎，及參考德國法上發展，並對於我國實務見解加以分析及檢討，尤其本文中對於假處分程序、民事保護令程序及訴訟救助等程序之釋明制度及證明度層次化可能性，且提出部分有別於現有文獻之觀察及評估。希該等初淺見解，能充當國內理論及實務上批評或參考之用。

關鍵字

證明 ； 釋明 ； 證明度 ； 蓋然性 ； 舉證責任 ； 優越蓋然性

並列摘要

”Glaubhaftmachung”, an approach to identify a specific fact in Civil Litigation Law, is significantly different from completely proof system. The differences between ”Glaubhaftmachung” and completely proof system are the way to consider evidence approaches and proof level. These two systems are based on different functions and purposes.
”Glaubhaftmachung” plays not only an important role in Civil Litigation regulations, but also has a main function in Non-Litigation Law. It is worthy to make research on the issues such as whether the Article 284 of Civil Litigation Law is harmonized with the regulation purpose of Civil Litigation Law, whether Article 284 is needed to modified or not, whether the relevant theories are followed the context of Civil Litigation Law.
Relevant researches about ”Glaubhaftmachung” in Taiwan are quite few. Even in Germany, the researches of ”Glaubhaftmachung”, compared to proof system, are not in abundance. However, the research of ”Glaubhaftmachung” in Germany is longer and deeper than it is in Taiwan; therefore, this article will introduce relevant theories in Germany for reference.
This article is trying to thoroughly analyze the proof level of the ”Glaubhaftmachung” system. For this purpose, this article will describe the whole picture of ”Glaubhaftmachung”, and further discuss whether different litigation types will effect the proof level of ”Glaubhaftmachung” by analyzing several cases in different regulations, such as interim award to copyright tort cases, the retraining order set forth in Anti-Domestic Violence Act and litigation assistance.

並列關鍵字

Proof ； Glaubhaftmachung ； Probabilistic ； Standard of Proof ； Burden of Proof ； Preponderance of Evidence

參考文獻

王甲乙、楊建華、鄭健才(2003)。民事訴訟法新論。

吳明軒(2004)。中國民事訴訟法（下）。

李木貴(2003)。滿足的假處分之再認識。月旦法學雜誌。50。

李學燈(1992)。證據法比較研究。五南。

沈方維、司法院編印、司法院八十九年家庭暴力防治法研究會合輯(2001)。民事保護令事件之性質及其程序法理初探。