給付訴訟中一貫性審查之要件事實──借鏡日本要件事實論

民事訴訟法（下稱民訴法）2021年修正第249條第2項，將原條文「原告之訴，依其所訴之事實，在法律上顯無理由者，法院得不經言詞辯論，逕以判決駁回之」改列為第2款，並將欠缺權利保護必要（訴之利益）與當事人適格獨立列為第1款，而於立法理由中明確指出，第2款之舊條文係指欠缺一貫性審查要件之情形，確立民訴法第249條第2項第2款為一貫性審查之實定法依據。最高法院近期亦首次就一貫性審查表示明確見解，即同院108年度台上字第2246號判決不僅要求本案審理程序應先行一貫性審查，且將一貫性審查作業更細緻區分，可謂具有指標性與創設性。於上述立法及裁判前提之下，一貫性審查之重要性不言而喻，勢必成為未來審判程序中之重點，則具體如何踐行一貫性審查即為問題所在。本文欲以日本發展近70年之要件事實論作為借鏡，試圖以要件事實論之思維，說明我國之審判實務上如何具體踐行一貫性審查，亦即原告所應主張之事實為何，被告所應主張之事實為何，以及法院如何就當事人之事實主張為適當之闡明，據以達成充實必要審理與排除不必要審理之目的，保護當事人之實體利益與程序利益，同時促進公益之訴訟經濟。　　本文共計六章。第一章為緒論，說明本文研究動機，提出問題意識，指出所使用之研究方法，並且劃定研究範圍與介紹篇章架構。　　第二章係對日本要件事實論之考察。於第一節，先就日本要件事實論之基礎概念作介紹，說明理論中對於要件事實定義之爭議，要件事實特定性、具體性之基準，以及要件事實最小限度原則。其次，於要件事實有基礎認識後，再介紹要件事實論定義之爭論，並釐清要件事實論與民法、民訴法之關係，且說明要件事實論所具備之機能。第二節則就要件事實論中具有特殊性之「規範性要件」另立一節說明。首先論及區別規範性要件與事實性要件之實益，再就某法律要件是否為規範性要件有爭議之情形為說明，以供我國討論時參考。其次說明規範性要件最主要之爭議係其要件事實為何，以評價本身作為要件事實，或以足以評價規範性要件成立之具體事實，亦即評價根據事實作為要件事實，存在不少歧異。釐清規範性要件之爭議後，將接續說明規範性要件之判斷構造與其他待解問題，以對規範性要件有更全面之認識。　　第三章為實體與程序交接之處，亦即依要件事實論之思維，如何判斷當事人之主張是否具有理性（一貫性），以規律當事人之攻擊防禦方法。第一節主要說明日本現行就主張有理性如何為判斷與規律。首先，欲判斷當事人主張是否具備有理性，須先明確何等事實應由原告主張，何等事實又應由被告主張。在給付訴訟中，法定請求權之發生係基於法律規定，當事人間並無合意存在，則由原告就法律所規定之內容為主張自無爭議；惟於契約上請求權之情形，就權利發生根據即有所爭議，並且連帶影響契約上請求權之要件事實內涵。本文將日本對此等問題之爭議內容加以整理，釐清各學說間之異同。其次，釐清各當事人所應主張之要件事實，並得以判斷是否具備有理性後，對於不具有理性之一造當事人主張，即應於訴訟早期排斥，此稱為主張本身失當法理。日本實務於當事人主張本身失當時，即不經證據調查而逕排斥主張，以避免無謂之審理。不過，主張本身失當法理在適用內容與射程上尚不明確，雖有論者歸納裁判予以類型化，但於學說與實務間並無統一之見解。因此，在第二節中，將以德國爭點整理技藝（Relationstechnik）中當事人主張之審查，反思主張有理性之判斷，並透過比較日本主張本身失當法理與德國當事人主張審查之不同，作為我國踐行一貫性審查之可靠借鏡。　　第四章於參考、借鏡日本要件事實論後，回歸我國之審判說明如何具體踐行一貫性審查。第一節先回顧我國一貫性審查之發展。民訴法第249條第2項修正前，審判實務就該條之運用，除用於欠缺訴之利益與當事人適格外，有很大部分係用於對職司審判或追訴公務員之損害賠償請求，僅有少部分係用於欠缺一貫性之情形，並且於判決理由亦未明確表示係因欠缺一貫性而駁回原告之訴。直至近期，最高法院始就一貫性審查作出指標性之判決，即同院108年度台上字第2246號判決。於學說文獻，對民訴法第249條第2項之適用，除用於欠缺訴之利益與當事人適格外，有論者認該條項係一貫性審查之實定法依據，與現今修法趨勢相同，並且亦提出除原告請求應行一貫性審查外，被告答辯亦應行重要性審查，以充實必要之審理與排除不必要之審理。第二節則借鏡、比較日本要件事實論之結果，試圖說明於我國應如何具體以要件事實論之思維，踐行原告請求之一貫性審查與被告答辯之重要性審查。首先係關於要件事實論建構之問題。日本要件事實論所包含之內容與爭議，在我國並非可全部予以套用，須有所調整並且適應於我國法之規定，故就此為詳細探討與闡釋。其次，分別就原告請求之一貫性審查與被告答辯之重要性審查，說明要件事實論之思維如何於其中具體發揮作用，以及所應注意之審查事項。　　第五章則以具體事例，實際演練如何以要件事實論之思維，踐行一貫性審查。第一節係以給付買賣價金事件、給付承攬報酬事件與返還借款事件等三種事件為例，就契約上請求權如何進行原告請求之一貫性審查與被告答辯之重要性審查為說明。第二節則係以返還不當得利事件、侵權行為損害賠償事件與拆屋還地事件等三種事件為例，就法定請求權如何進行原告請求之一貫性審查與被告答辯之重要性審查為說明。最後，第六章總結本文之研究成果。

關鍵字

一貫性審查；重要性審查；要件事實；要件事實論；主張本身失當；規範性要件；爭點整理技藝

並列摘要

Article 249(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) was amended in 2021 to move the original provision "Where the plaintiff's claim, given the facts that he/she alleges, is manifestly without legal grounds, the court may, without oral argument, issue a judgment dismissing the action with prejudice" to Subparagraph 2, and to provide for the lack of necessity of rights protection and standing separately in Subparagraph 1. The legislative reason of this article clearly states that Subparagraph 2 refers to the lack of consistency, which establishes Article 249, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the CCP as the basis for the consistent examination. In addition, the Supreme Court also recently issued its first clear opinion on the consistent examination in the Civil Judgment of the Supreme Court (108) Tai Shan Tsu No. 2246 (2019). The judgment is indicative and innovative in that it not only requires that the consistent examination should be conducted first in the procedure but also elaborates the consistent examination in detail. With the above legislation and judgment, the importance of consistent examination is self-evident and will certainly become the focus of trials in the future. Thus, the question arises as to how to practice the consistent examination. This thesis attempts to illustrate how to practice the consistent examination in our civil procedures by referring to the ultimate facts theory developed in Japan for nearly 70 years. It would clarify what the facts that the plaintiff should claim are, what the facts that the defendant should defense are, and how the court should appropriately elucidate the parties' factual claims to fulfill requisite trials and eliminate unnecessary ones, thereby discovering the truth and hastening the proceedings. 　　First of all, it is necessary to understand the content of Japanese ultimate facts theory. The ultimate facts theory is a kind of legal thinking, which in terms of substance is to analyze the provisions of substantive law such as the Civil Code from the perspective of procedural law, and to divide the legal requirements into requirements of the occurrence, the obstruction, the elimination, and the suppression of the rights; in terms of procedure, it is used to regulate the means of attack and defense between the parties, with the plaintiff claiming the existence of a right to assert the ultimate fact of the occurrence of the rights, and the defendant claiming the non-existence of a right to assert the ultimate fact of the obstruction, elimination, or suppression of the rights. Further, in Japan, there is a jurisprudence similar to Article 249, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2 of the CCP, which excludes obviously improper claims at an early stage of litigation to avoid unnecessary trials, called "the inconsistent claims". Although this jurisprudence is commonly used in Japanese trial practice, its scope of application is unclear. Therefore, some scholars have referred to the German “Relationstechnik” to improve this jurisprudence and give it a theoretical basis. 　　Second, the thesis would turn to discuss our consistent examination. The ultimate facts theory is worth studying because of its importance in Japanese trial practice as a key to conduct trial proceedings speedily and properly. However, since our legal system is not the same as Japan's, it is necessary to adjust the content of the Japanese ultimate facts theory according to our situation to construct the ultimate facts theory that is suitable for our legal system. This thesis would illustrate how to conduct the consistent examination of the plaintiff's claims and the consistent examination (also known as the relevant examination) of the defendant's defenses with the ultimate facts theory. In other words, this thesis would point out what ultimate facts the plaintiff should claim to pass the consistent examination, what ultimate facts the defendant should plead to pass the relevant examination, and how the court should properly elucidate and direct the litigation. 　　Finally, this thesis would use six specific examples to illustrate how to conduct the consistent examination with the ultimate facts theory. These six examples are the payment of a price, the payment of remuneration for hire of work, the repayment of a loan, the return of unjust enrichment, the tort damages, and the demolition of a house and return of land. The first three are contractual claims and the last three are statutory claims. Through the above practical examples, the results of this thesis can be more clearly explained and practical.

並列關鍵字

the consistent examination ； the relevant examination ； the ultimate fact ； the ultimate facts theory ； the inconsistent claim ； the normative requirement ； Relationstechnik