不動產處分禁止假處分之當事人恆定效──以日本法為借鏡

民事保全制度係為保護債權人免於在本案終局裁判前，因情事之發展、變動所可能發生之危險，以確保其進行之民事訴訟結果能獲實現所設之權宜制度。實務上就假處分制度之利用而言，以「處分禁止假處分」限制假處分債務人處分系爭物，確保假處分債權人將來得實現系爭物給付請求權之情形，最為普遍。有關處分禁止假處分之效力，無論學說及實務均肯認依強執法第140條準用第51條第2項查封效力之規定，於假處分實施後，假處分債務人就系爭物所為移轉、設定負擔或其他有礙本案執行效果之行為，對於假處分債權人不生效力。惟實務上基於土地法第75條之1及土地登記規則第141條第1項之規定，認不動產經執行法院囑託辦理假處分登記後，於假處分登記塗銷前，登記機關即應停止與其權利有關之新登記。此項見解無異於假處分登記後，使假處分債務人與第三人間就系爭物之處分行為絕對無效，有牴觸強執法第51條第2項規範意旨之虞。有鑑於上述處分禁止假處分效力之爭議，本文透過以日本法為中心之比較法研究，確立我國處分禁止假處分相對效力在主體、客體及時間範圍上之界限；且進一步以貫徹假處分之相對效力為前提，探討假處分在本案訴訟上所發揮之當事人恆定效，並論證本案確定判決之執行力與既判力如何擴張於違反假處分之第三人，藉此建構假處分債權人排除牴觸行為之具體程式，確保其於本案訴訟中所取得之勝訴地位。本文共計六章。第一章簡要說明本文研究動機，並提出問題意識，劃定研究範圍。第二章說明對於日本舊法時代處分禁止假處分效力之考察。其中，第一節就處分禁止假處分效力及其界限，介紹實務上自「絕對效力說」發展為「相對效力說」之脈絡。在相對效力說之見解下，假處分之處分禁止效在人之界限上，僅在對於假處分債權人之關係上具有相對禁止系爭物處分之效力；在時之界限上，應立於「本案勝訴說」，假處分債權人於本案訴訟取得勝訴確定判決或得與之同視者，終局性確定其所主張之被保全權利存在之際，始得基於處分禁止效，現實排除假處分違反行為；在物之界限上，應限於對假處分債權人之被保全權利關係上始生處分禁止效。學說上進一步提出「實體效力說」，處分禁止效使假處分違反行為相對無效之限度或範圍，須繫於被保全權利之實體法性質以定。第二節就處分禁止假處分之機能，區分為實體面向及程序面向予以探討。其在實體面向可發揮順位保全效，在假處分登記時已先行保全被保全權利之順位，使該權利優先於第三人在假處分登記後就系爭物所取得之權利；在程序面向可發揮當事人恆定效，假處分債權人在本案訴訟上得恆定假處分債務人為被告，且得依對假處分債務人之本案判決，除去假處分違反行為，以實現被保全權利。第三章介紹日本新訂民事保全法上有關處分禁止假處分效力之規範。依同法所定之處分禁止假處分類型，分別說明其被保全權利、執行方法、假處分效力及其實現程序。其中，有關處分禁止假處分之效力及其實現程序，針對保全不動產登記請求權者，民保法第58條就舊法時代登記實務上之處理予以明文，且在保全有關所有權以外權利的保存、設定或變更登記請求權之情形，併用「保全假登記」制度，達成順位保全之效果。此項新制，使假處分違反行為之除去，無須一概以塗銷登記之方式為之，具有適正化假處分效力之意義。針對保全建物除去土地返還請求者，同法第64條規定假處分債權人得以本案勝訴確定判決，受繼受執行文之付與後，對違反假處分之第三人為強制執行。第四章分為二節，回歸我國現行法之討論。第一節梳理我國學說及實務有關處分禁止假處分效力之見解，參考日本法相關見解，確立處分禁止假處分之相對效力。亦即，處分禁止效之主體範圍，限於「對假處分債權人之關係上」；在客體範圍上，應僅於「有礙被保全權利執行效果」之限度內否定假處分違反行為；假處分效力現實排除牴觸行為之作用時點，應限於假處分債權人取得本案勝訴確定判決或與之同視者。第二節以貫徹假處分之相對效力為前提，探討假處分之當事人恆定效具有別於當事人恆定主義之獨立性。兩者不僅法理根據相異，且假處分之當事人恆定效所發揮當事人恆定之機能，無論在適用範圍或當事人恆定之作用上，均無法由當事人恆定主義所取代。第五章分為二節。第一節說明本案判決之執行力如何擴張於違反假處分之第三人。假處分債權人取得本案勝訴確定判決或與之同視者，可利用執行力擴張制度，以該確定判決為執行名義，依強執法第51條第3項聲請執行法院對違反假處分之第三人強制執行而排除牴觸行為。此際，在保全不動產處分（登記）請求權之情形，執行法院應依被保全權利之實體法性質，囑託地政機關於假處分債權人依被保全權利單獨申請登記之同時，塗銷該第三人之登記、以該第三人為設定登記義務人，或就該第三人之登記為次序變更登記；在保全建物除去土地返還請求權之情形，執行法院應以該第三人為執行義務人加以執行。第二節說明本案判決之既判力如何擴張於違反假處分之第三人。為正當化既判力擴張於該第三人，宜（類推）適用民訴法第67條之1及第254條第4項規定，賦予其事前的程序保障；且如該第三人未獲參與訴訟之機會係因非可歸責於己之事由，仍得於本案訴訟之判決確定後，依民訴法507條之1所定第三人撤銷訴訟程序謀求救濟，充實事後的程序保障。最後，第六章總結本文之研究成果。

關鍵字

處分禁止假處分；處分禁止效；執行保全效；相對效力說；當事人恆定效；執行力擴張；既判力擴張

並列摘要

In order to ensure that a final and binding judgment of the principal action will be enforceable, it is common that the creditor uses a provisional injunction to restrict the debtor from disposing of the things at issue in practical practice. As to the effect of provisional injunction, the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 51 of Compulsory Enforcement Act shall be mutatis mutandis applied, which means after the provisional injunction is implemented, the transfer, creation of impositions, or any other act that may encumber the enforcement effect made by the debtor with regards to the things at issue shall have no effect on the creditor. However, based on Article 75-1 of Land Act and Paragraph 1 of Article 141 of Regulations of the Land Registration, if the real property on which the registration of provisional injunction has been undertaken due to the request of the court, and the said registration has not been cancelled, the registration agency shall stop undertaking any new registration related to the rights concerned. These provisions which are tantamount to making the disposition of the things at issue between the debtor and the third party absolutely invalid, may conflict with the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 51 of Compulsory Enforcement Act. In the light of the conflict mentioned above, this thesis aims to deal with the following issues through comparative legal research focusing on Japanese law. First of all, the provisional injunction only has relative effect so as to prevent the debtor or the third party from suffering unnecessary prejudice. In subjective scope, the acts violating provisional injunction shall only have no effect on“the creditor.”In objective scope, the violating acts shall have no effect only if they“encumber the enforcement effect.”In temporal scope, the creditor“shall obtain a irrevocable final judgment of the principal action or what have the same effect”before practically removing the violating acts. Secondly, under the premise of Theory of Relative Effect, the effect of invariability of parties of provisional injunction differs from the Principle of Invariability of Parties regulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 254 of Code of Civil Procedure in the jurisprudential fundament and the function of invariability of parties. Therefore, the effect of invariability of parties of provisional injunction could not be substituted for the Principle of Invariability of Parties. Furthermore, based on the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 51 of Compulsory Enforcement Act, the force of enforcement of the final judgment of the principal action shall extend to the third party who violates provisional injunction. Thus, depending on the the right preserveed by a provisional injunction, the enforcement court may, upon petition of the creditor, remove the acts violating provisional injunction. For instance, if the preserved right is to claim the disposition or registration of real property, the enforcement court may notify the registration authority to cancel the registration or make a registration for change of order in the rights of the third party violating provisional injunction, or take such third party as the registering party. If the preserved right is to claim the removal of the building and the surrender of land, the enforcement court may carry out a compulsory enforcement directly against such third party. Finally, to ensure the position of prevailing party of the creditor in the principal action, res judicata of the final judgment of the principal action shall extend to the third party who violates provisional injunction. With regard to the justification for the extension of res judicata, Paragraph 4 of Article 254 or Article 67-1 of Code of Civil Procedure shall be applied by analogy as ex-ante procedural protection. On the other hand, if the third party who is bound by the judgment was prevented from intervening in the principal action due to reasons not imputable to himself or herself, and thus was unable to present means of attack or defense which may have affected the result of the judgment, such third party may initiate an opposition action regulated in Article 507-1 of Code of Civil Procedure for ex-post procedural protection.