仲裁判斷之爭點效

Issue Preclusion of Arbitral Awards

俞兆安(Jaw-An Yu)

指導教授 ： 沈冠伶

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2021年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202102304

摘要

仲裁，係由雙方當事人合意不以訴訟解決紛爭，而將法律上紛爭委由私人性質之中立第三方進行判斷，並且同意終局性服從該判斷之結果，可說是一種「私設法院」，使之成為裁決型裁判外紛爭解決機制之代表。由仲裁人做成之仲裁判斷，對於雙方當事人而言具有之拘束力，除針對仲裁標的之判斷具有既判力外，是否就仲裁判斷中理由之判斷具有爭點效？此涉及仲裁判斷所能夠終局性解決紛爭之範圍，影響雙方當事人之利益重大。然而在我國學說實務之討論上，相較於民事訴訟法上對判決爭點效之熱烈議論，我國仲裁法是否承認仲裁判斷爭點效之問題，僅有零星之關注。因此，似有必要對我國仲裁法是否承認仲裁判斷適用爭點效理論之問題加以釐清。
隨著仲裁制度之發展，當代之仲裁實務非僅限於迅速、簡易的解決當事人間之紛爭，亦被用於處理高額、複雜之紛爭，要求仲裁庭須慎重、正確的做成裁判。並且為了因應案件之複雜化，仲裁程序引進案件管理技術以平衡兼顧程序之正當性及效率性。此種仲裁程序制度之演進，亦影響了考慮仲裁判斷是否適用爭點效理論之問題時的解釋方向。
本文嘗試從當事人仲裁協議的約定、仲裁程序之進行，以及我國仲裁法之規定文義中，找尋在我國仲裁法之規範下，仲裁判斷是否有適用爭點效理論之必要性及正當性存在。在肯定我國仲裁法之文義得使仲裁判斷具有爭點效之後，本文考慮當事人對於紛爭解決之期待、私人程序利益之花費以及法院公益資源之消耗等面向，認為仲裁判斷亦有發生爭點效之必要性。並且以當事人程序選擇權之行使、仲裁程序中之程序保障以及程序法上誠信原則之角度，肯定爭點效發生之正當性。
以承認爭點效理論適用於仲裁判斷之可能性為基礎，本文進一步分析仲裁判斷爭點效之要件，以使當事人對於重要爭點發生爭點效一事得以預見且不受突襲，確保爭點效之發生係必要與正當。並本於仲裁程序所具有之特質，討論仲裁判斷之爭點效除拘束屬同種類程序之後仲裁程序外，得否拘束屬於不同種類程序之後訴訟程序，以及應如何於後續程序中適用前仲裁判斷所具有之爭點效。
綜上，本文試圖提供仲裁判斷適用爭點效理論之框架，使法院或仲裁實務於判斷前仲裁判斷是否具有爭點效時，得具有依循之基準，並作為未來理論上進一步予以發展及成熟之基礎。

關鍵字

仲裁程序 ； 仲裁判斷 ； 爭點效理論 ； 案件管理會議 ； 爭點整理 ； 暫時性心證開示 ； 程序選擇權 ； 程序保障

並列摘要

Arbitration is a private court that both parties agree not to use litigation to solve their legal dispute but let a private neutral third party make the judgment, and agree to obey the result of that judgment, makes it the representative of adjudicative ADR. The question of what kind of binding force an arbitral award has besides res judicata, which applies to the claim of arbitral awards, needs to consider whether the reasoning of arbitral awards applies to the issue preclusion effect. This argument will severely affect both parties' interests since it decides the scope of an arbitral award resolute dispute. However, under the discussions of our country, only a few had ever focused on this problem, compares to the issue preclusion effect of civil litigation's heated discussions. Hence, it seems necessary to clarify that under the Taiwanese arbitration law, whether the issue preclusion effect of arbitral awards is accepted.
With the development of arbitration, in modern practice, arbitration is not only a quick and simple way to solve disputes. Arbitration is also used to deal with legal disputes that are more complex and expensive, which requires the arbitral tribunal to make a prudent and proper award. because of the complexation of cases, arbitral proceedings use case management techniques to balance the appropriateness and efficiency of the proceedings. These kinds of the evolution of arbitral proceedings also affect the consideration of the interpretation of whether arbitral awards have the effect of issue preclusion.
This paper tries to find if it is necessary and appropriate to apply issue preclusion to an arbitral award under the Taiwanese arbitration law considering parties' arbitration agreement, arbitral proceeding, and the text of the Taiwanese arbitration law. By grammatical interpretation, it is possible to recognize that arbitral awards apply to issue preclusion effect under the Taiwanese arbitration law. Under that premise, this paper believes it is necessary to let arbitral awards have the issue preclusion effect considering parties' expectation to dispute resolution, the expense of private procedural interest, and the consumption of the national court's public interest. It is also appropriate to apply issue preclusion to arbitral awards from the perspective of parties' right of procedure options, due process of arbitral proceedings, and the principle of good faith in procedural law.
Based on that issue preclusion effects can apply to arbitral awards, this paper further analyses the elements of issue preclusion effects when it applies to arbitral awards so that parties will be able to expect particular issues in arbitral proceedings would be precluded without being surprised. Also, this paper tries to discuss that whether the issue preclusion effect of a prior arbitral award could constraint a later civil litigation procedure and how to apply the issue preclusion effect of a prior arbitral award in later procedures. In conclusion, this paper attempts to provide a theoretical framework for issue preclusion to apply to arbitral awards, allowing practitioners to have a useable guideline when determining whether a prior arbitral award has issue preclusion effects, and becomes the basis of future theoretical development.

並列關鍵字

Arbitral Procedure ； Arbitral Award ； Issue Preclusion ； Case Management Conference ； issues coordination ； Expressing Arbitral Tribunal’s Preliminary Views ； Right to Procedure Options ； Due Process

參考文獻

一、中文部分

（一）、教科書與專書

1.呂太郎（2009），《民事訴訟之基本理論（二）》，元照。

2.沈冠伶（2006），《訴訟權保障與裁判外紛爭處理》，元照。

3.沈冠伶（2012），《程序保障與當事人》，元照。