家事扶養請求事件之審判與程序法理交錯適用

自2012年6月施行之家事事件法，關於家事事件之分類定性及程序規範設計均有別於過去實務學說所採之程序二元分離論，並基於事件類型審理必要論與程序法理交錯適用論做為重要前導法理，創設介於純粹訴訟與純粹非訟間之「中間程序」、「第三程序」，以處理非訟化審理與訴訟化審理之事件類型，實為民事程序法制發展之重要里程碑。　　雖事件類型審理必要論與程序法理交錯適用論本身已十分完備全面，惟關於家事事件法中之中間程序如何進行、程序法理交錯適用論又如何實踐於具體個案中，仍有待針對不同類型之事件進行更細緻之研究，始能建立更加清楚明確、足以依循之審判標準。以扶養請求事件為例，雖家事事件法將其全面行非訟化審理，並於裁定程序中交錯適用非訟法理與訴訟法理，但學說實務上不僅在家事訴訟事件或家事非訟事件之定性層次即頗具爭議，後續關於法理如何適用始為妥適亦多有歧見。　　本文著眼於此，故決定以家事扶養請求事件之審判與程序法理交錯適用為題進行研究。首先於第一章中揭示問題意識，並介紹研究範圍與研究方法。第二章先回歸一般論之問題，除探究訴訟事件、非訟事件之意義與區分標準，亦簡要梳理訴訟法理與非訟法理之內涵以及於我國民事訴訟法與非訟事件法之規範方式，嘗試提出訴訟事件與非訟事件之類型系列，並以此為據，釐清回應對於程序法理交錯適用論之質疑批評，並肯認此理論之採行。後續則進入家事事件法領域，其做為事件類型審理必要論與程序法理交錯適用論之實踐適例，除在實定法上依據各事件類型之訟爭性強弱、當事人或利害關係人對程序標的享有之處分權限，以及需求法院職權裁量以迅速裁判程度之不同將家事事件分為五大類型，分行家事訴訟程序與家事非訟程序外，應亦能從各事件應適用或交錯適用之規定理解家事事件法之體系。同時並觀察程序法理交錯適用論之落實，與本於家事事件特性或延續民事程序法發展意旨的調解前置主義、促成合意原則、不公開審理、統合處理原則與程序主體權保障原則等重要法理互相搭配，如何建構出家事事件法之樣貌。　　其次於第三章與第四章則兼採比較法研究方式，以德國民法與德國家事事件及非訟事件法做為比較對象，分從實體法與程序法就扶養制度與扶養事件程序進行剖析。在實體法層次上，相較於我國民法中扶養規範具備的高度實體法非訟化現象，德國民法不僅規定較為明確具體，且實務上杜賽爾道夫表之配套亦使權利義務關係內容形成有統一標準可循。在程序法層次，我國家事事件法與德國家事事件及非訟事件法均將扶養請求事件行裁定程序，並於程序中交錯適用訴訟法理，雖滿足各程序法上要求之途徑不盡相同，惟對於迅速經濟裁判之追求、程序主體權之尊重保障，以及統合處理目標之重視均不謀而合，於此意義上，一方面可認為兩制度各具特色，我國法實無須為全面之效法移植，另一方面，藉由與德國法之比較，毋寧更足徵我國法將扶養請求事件行全面非訟化審理實為必要且有益。　　在第五章中，本文則具體進入如何交錯適用程序法理，就扶養請求事件為審理裁判之問題，並分從單一扶養請求事件，以及扶養請求事件與其他請求合併之單一程序，兩種不同單位進行研究，提出於解釋論上得為之開展。在單一扶養請求事件中，討論之法理聚焦於處分權主義與職權主義、協同主義與職權探知主義，以及裁定既判力與相關聯法理（言詞審理與書狀審理、直接審理與間接審理、嚴格證明與自由證明、裁定可變更性與變更確定裁定之聲請），各該事件除應依程序標的、請求主體、事件特性、程序目的與程序內容分別進行不同法理之擇定與不同程度之適用，以謀求個案中之具體妥當性。另一方面，於扶養請求與其他請求合併之單一程序中，本文亦分從扶養請求事件與家事非訟事件之合併，以及與家事訴訟事件之合併進行研究，具體之程序法理適用上除應衡量上開特徵外，亦應留意家事事件法上是否有特殊規定應優先適用，以在適度回應各事件所具備特性之同時，亦應留意程序進行之一體性，避免過度複雜化反失卻統合處理所得獲致之利益。　　最後，於第六章中則提出四大點研究結果，希冀能藉由解釋論上之開展，稍事釐清扶養請求事件審理裁判之方式，並對於日後實務運作或立法方向有所助益。

關鍵字

程序法理交錯適用；扶養請求事件；家事非訟程序；處分權主義；協同主義與職權探知主義；非訟裁定既判力；程序保障

並列摘要

Family Act, which came into effect in June 2012, has changed the way that had been used to classify family matters and set the norms. Instead of binary system, the theory of alternation between procedural principles is adopted by Family Act. “The third proceeding” has been coined to deal with the matters which are partly contentious and partly noncontentious, which is undoubtedly a milestone in the development of civil procedure law. However, how to put the theory of alternation between procedural principles into practice in different cases and set standards for judges to follow up seems to require more time and additional effort. Take claims for maintenance for example, according to Family Act, non-litigation proceeding for family matters shall apply to them. Nevertheless, there is still a huge controversy over whether categorizing them as contentious or noncontentious matters and which kind of principles should be chosen that can be considered to be suitable. Therefore, this thesis intends to figure out these questions and focus on the way to carry out the theory of alternation between principles in claims for maintenance. Before proceeding to the substantial parts, it is necessary to brief the background and the questions raised. Besides, the scope of this thesis and the method adopted will be showed in Chapter 1. Firstly, based on the studies of definitions of contentious and noncontentious matters, the criteria to distinguish them and the meaning of various principles, this thesis tries to comprehend civil matters by means of “Type” mode of thought from legal method, respond to the criticism of the theory of alternation between principles and explain the reasons why this theory should be adopted in Chapter 2. Then turning to Family Act, as an example of practicing the theory, family matters can not only be classified into five different groups according to three various characteristics, but can also be categorized based on the applicable regulations. Additionally, this thesis mentioned the common principles for all kinds of family matters as well. In Chapter 3 and 4, the frame of system and the regulations of both substantive and procedural law in Taiwan and Germany will be presented and studied through the methodology of comparative legal research thoroughly. From the comparison of those two different systems, it shows that although several parts in both substantive and procedure law are totally not the same thing, including how specific or vague the requirements and the effects of maintenance obligation are and whether there is a clear form for the courts to calculate maintenance appropriately and quickly, Taiwanese and German law are actually trying to achieve the same goals, for example, solving the disputes correctly, quickly and properly and protecting the rights of the parties sufficiently. Thus, there is no need for Taiwan to introduce German system. Moreover, from the result of the research, we can say that classifying claims for maintenance as noncontentious family matters is necessary and beneficial in Taiwanese system. Based on previous discussion, the way to alternate different kinds of principles in the proceedings of claims for maintenance is provided in Chapter 5. As for a single claim for maintenance, the type of relatives of parties, the claim which applicant indicates, the characteristics of the matter, the purpose of the proceeding and how the court deals with the matter must be taken into consideration as far as choosing the suitable principles is concerned. This part focuses on whether to adopt principle of party disposition or not, either cooperation system or inquisitorial system, and if it is necessary and justified to apply res judicata to the rulings. On the other hand, when it comes to the joining of claims for maintenance and other kinds of matters, it is not easy to strike a balance between reducing the complexity and achieving consistency of the whole proceeding. This thesis also intends to work on this issue from two aspects, including the joining of claims for maintenance and family litigation matters, and claims for maintenance and family non-litigation matters. Finally, four research results will be listed in Chapter 6. Hopefully this thesis can make some contributions to the way to deal with claims for maintenance and future legislative plans.