非訟事件之程序法理交錯適用
─以本質非訟事件與真正訟爭事件之對比為中心

我國於2012年通過施行之家事事件法，基於事件類型審理必要論，將範圍廣泛之家事事件，依各該事件類型之訟爭性強弱程度、當事人對程序標的所享有之處分權限範圍及需求法院職權裁量以迅速裁判程度之不同，劃分為五類事件，因應各該事件類型之特性需求，以定其審理時所應適用之程序法理。其中將丁、戊類事件部分向來以訴訟程序處理之家事訴訟事件改定為非訟事件，明定真正訟爭事件而創設第三程序（中間程序）。此類事件異於訴訟事件與非訟事件，須交錯適用訴訟法理與非訟法理進行審理，以平衡保護關係人之實體利益與程序利益。本文以此為契機，擬研究非訟事件（本質非訟事件與真正訟爭事件）之程序法制，並以審理時所應適用之程序法理與本案裁定之既判力為中心，嘗試就多樣的非訟事件應適用處分權主義或公權主義、就事證之蒐集應適用協同主義或職權探知主義以及本案確定裁定是否具有既判力等議題，提出妥適之解釋論並指示將來可能之立法方向。　　本文共計五章，第一章為緒論，揭示問題意識、研究方法以及整體篇章結構。第二章說明如何區辨本質非訟事件與真正訟爭事件，整理歸納非訟事件所具之特徵，並參酌日本實務見解說明訟爭性之內涵，如就權利存否有所爭執者屬於訴訟事件，而不涉及權利存否之判斷，而需求法院形成具體權利內容或一定法律關係者則為非訟事件。真正訟爭事件雖涉及法律關係存否之判斷，惟亦具有相當非訟性質，立法上宜將之非訟化，採行非訟化審理，然為呼應其訟爭性，應交錯訴訟法理進行審理。此種程序法理交錯適用之審理模式，可實現適時審判請求權而具有憲法上正當性，使關係人得平衡兼顧其實體利益與程序利益。　　第三章說明非訟事件審理時所應適用之程序法理。第一部分闡述處分權主義／公權主義於非訟事件之運用：以程序開啟是否須由聲請權人聲請以及關係人得否處分程序標的為標準，得將非訟事件區分為真正聲請事件、不真正聲請事件、真正職權事件與不真正職權事件，進一步就程序之開啟、審判對象範圍以及程序之終結為檢討，以事件性質與所涉公益性與私益性高低不同，決定所應適用之程序法理。就聲請人之聲明是否具有拘束性而言，實體法上如賦予法院就法律效果相當裁量權者，因權利內容尚未具體化，為使法院妥適行使裁量權，即便關係人可處分程序標的，仍應認為不適用處分權主義之聲明拘束性原則。第二部分則討論非訟事件應採取協同主義抑或職權探知主義：如程序標的涉及公益抑或實體法之法律要件與法律效果不明確，仰賴法院合目的性判斷者，應採取職權探知主義；反之，若僅涉私益且法院無裁量判斷之空間者，則應採用協同主義。然即便採行職權探知主義，因法院事證調查能力有限，依程序法之誠信原則，關係人就事證蒐集負有協力義務。如關係人怠於履行協力義務，並得依舉證責任之分配原則對其作成不利裁判，於關係人可處分程序標的之情形，並可擬制待證事實為真實以為制裁。　　第四章探討非訟裁定之既判力。首先說明既判力之作用、性質，暨其必要性與正當性。進而檢討非訟裁定既判力之適格性，如涉及主觀權利之實現，法安定性的需求甚於適時調整、變更以達合目的性裁判之要求者，具有既判力適格性。為充足既判力之發生，亦應賦予非訟程序關係人相當之程序保障，以落實聽審請求權之要求。再者，說明非訟裁定既判力之範圍，就時之範圍，如非訟程序未進行言詞辯論，則應以關係人陳述意見之機會終結時為基準時。而關係人若已盡主張之能事，然存有法院所未察知之事實，因難以期待關係人即時提出、提示時，則不被既判力遮斷。又非訟裁定涉及繼續性法律關係之展望性預測，然發生情事變更時，應類推適用家事法第102條規定，法院得依關係人之聲請變更裁判內容。　　就既判力之客體範圍，應準用或類推適用民訴法第400條第1項規定，以程序標的與程序聲明為既判力之客體範圍。真正訟爭事件而言，以權利或法律關係存否之判斷為既判力之客體範圍。本質上非訟事件，以權利內容或法律關係之形成為既判力之客體範圍。關係人若於非訟程序爭執前提法律關係存否而產生訟爭性時，為使紛爭一次解決，非訟法院應交錯訴訟法理審理訟爭事項，賦予關係人相當程序保障，法院就前提事項之判斷亦產生爭點效，以終局解決紛爭。若關係人已於非訟程序受有相當程序保障，然未爭執前提關係存否，於裁定確定後始起訴爭執前提關係，欲推翻非訟裁定之效力時，基於程序法之誠信原則，防止權利濫用或違反禁反言原則，應駁回其起訴。　　就既判力之主體範圍，應類推適用民訴法之規定，包含（1）當事人、（2）為他人而為聲請人或相對人之該他人、（3）當事人或該他人之繼受人、（4）為當事人、他人或繼受人占有請求標的物之人，以及（5）依非訟法第30條之3、家事法第77條、準用民訴法第67條之1規定等，因法院職權通知而受事前程序保障者，與（6）於特定情形，擴張於第三人（對世效）。為正當化上述之人受既判力拘束，應賦予其相當程序保障，透過非訟法第30條之3第2項、家事法第77條、民訴法第67條之1、第254條第4項等規定，由法院職權通知利害關係人，使其有及時參與程序之機會以享有事前的程序保障。若因不可歸責之事由未享有事前程序保障者，得類推適用民訴法第507條之1以下有關第三人撤銷訴訟之規定，聲請法院撤銷對其不利部分之裁定效力，享有事後之程序保障。　　第五章則總結前述各章所涉議題之結論，並期盼將來得針對具體個別之事件類型，更細緻地研究所應適用之程序法理，落實事件類型審理必要論與程序法理交錯適用論，實踐人民實體利益與程序利益之平衡兼顧。

關鍵字

本質非訟事件；真正訟爭事件；非訟化審理；程序法理交錯適用；處分權主義；公權主義；協同主義；職權探知主義；協力義務；既判力適格性；程序保障

並列摘要

The Family Act implemented in Taiwan, 2012 divides family matters into five categories, based on the contentious degrees of matters, the disposability of subject matters of the proceeding and the demands of expeditiousness of the proceeding to decide how to apply the legal theories of procedure properly. Moreover, the Family Act alters some family ligitation matters into family non-litigation matters, enacting the essentially contentious matters and the third proceedings which require interlacing the legal theories of procedure to protect the substantive and procedural interests of the parties. Therefore, this thesis researches how to apply the legal theories in the non-contentious matters, including the essentially non-contentious cases and the essentially contentious matters. 　　This thesis has five chapters. The first chapter is to clarify the motivation of the study and bring up questions, research methods and whole structure. Chapter 2 analyzes how to distinguish essentially non-contentious cases and the essentially contentious matters, interpreting the characters of non-contentious matters and explaining what contentiousness is. If the parties argue whether the right exists or not, this kind of dispute is a contentious matter, on the contrary, if the parties acknowledge the right exists and request the Court to concretize its contents, this kind of case is a non-contentious matter. Essentially contentious matters require the Court to judge if the right exists, however it also has strong characters of non-contentious matters, therefore, it shall interlace the legal theories of litigation matters and the legal theories of non-litigation matters. With the alternation between procedural principles, the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time can be fulfilled to make the parties balance their substantive and procedural interests. 　　Chapter 3 analyzes the legal theories of procedure which shall be applied in non-litigation procedure. The first part is about how to apply Disposition principle or Initiative principle to non-contentious matters. Non-contencious matters can be divided into motion matters, unauthentic motion matters, ex officio matters and un-ex officio matters, depending on whether the procedure requires a motion filed by applicant or not and whether the matter is subject to the disposition of interested parties. This part focuses on the iniation of procedure, the scope of subject matters of the proceeding and the termination of procedure, interpreting how to apply the legal theories of procedure with the different characteristics(public interest or private interest) of non-contentious matters. If the Court is granted the discretion for the legal effect, the demand of applicant for judgment for the relief sought wouldn’t bind the Court, even the subject matters of the proceeding are subject to the disposition of interested parties. The second part touches upon either Cooperative Principle or the Principle of Ex Officio Investigation shall be adopted in the non-contentious procedure. The Principle of Ex Officio Investigation shall be adopted when the non-contentious matter is related to the public interest or requires the Court makes a purposive judgement because of legal requirement and legal effect are unclear. Instead, Cooperative Principle shall be adopted when the non-contentious matter is only related to the private interest and the Court has no discretion for the legal requirement. In addition, even the Principle of Ex Officio Investigation is adopted in the non-contentious procedure, because the capability of the Court to investigate facts and evidences is limited, the parties have the obligation of co-operation. If the parties default on their obligation of co-operation, the Court could make a ruling with the standard of allocation of burden of proof. Besides, when the matter is subject to the disposition of interested parties, the Court may take factum probandum as the truth in its discretion. 　　Chapter 4 analyzes the bing effect of the ruling of non-contentious cases. First, this chapter interprets the necessity and legitimacy of the binding effect, then examining the eligibility of the binding effect of the ruling of non-contentious cases. If the demand for legal stability surpasses the demand for timely revoking or amending the inappropriate ruling, this kind of non-contentious matters have the eligibility of the binding effect. To legitimize the binding effect of the ruling of non-contentious cases, the interested parties shall be granted the adequate procedural protections. Secondly, this chapter analyzes the scope of the binding effect of the ruling of non-contentious matters. In terms of the scope of time of binding effect, the parties may not proceed orally, so the standard point of time is the point of termination of the opportunity of the interested parties to make a pleading through an oral argument or a statement. If the parties have fully claimed and offered evidences, the facts which didin’t be investigated by the Court still exist though, these facts shouldn’t be interdicted by the binding effect because it is hard to expect the parties present these facts timely. Besides, if the binding ruling involves the continuous legal relationship, when the circumstances change, the Court shall apply Act 102 of the Family Act by analogy to these cases. 　　In terms of the objective scope of the binding effect, the provisions of first paragraph of Article 400 in the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the non-contentious matters. To handle the disputes integratedly in one-time, the Court shall adopt the legal theories of litigation matters to deal with the contentious matters, when the parties argue the existence of the premised legal relationship in the non-contentious proceeding. With the parties granted the adequate procedural protections, the judgement of the Court for the premised matters has the issue preclusion to ultimately resolve the disputes. If the parties don’t argue the existence of the premised legal relationship in the non-contentious proceeding but initiate an action afterward to debate the premised matters to reverse the ruling, the Court shall dismiss the action based on the procedural Good Faith principle. 　　In terms of the subjective scope of the binding effect, the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the non-contentious matters. The following people shall be bound by the binding effect: (a) The parties, (b) The person who the party has acted as the applicant or the opposing party for, (c) The person who becomes a party's successor and the successor of the person refferd to in subparagraph (b), (d) The person who possesses the claimed object for the parties and for the person refferd to in subparagraph (b) or their successors, (e) The person who is granted the beforehand procedural protection with notification by the Court, (f) In specific circumstances, the third parties shall be bound(erga omnes binding effects). As the beforehand procedural protection, the Court shall notify the interested parties the non-contentious proceeding and the phase on its initiative to make them have the opportunity to participate in the proceeding timely. Futhermore, in cases where the intersted parties were prevented from intervening in the proceeding due to reasons not imputable to himself/herself, such interested parties may apply the provisions of third-party opposition proceeding in the Code of Civil Procedure by analogy to these cases. These parties may file an opposition motion against that final and binding ruling to seek the revocation of the portion of such ruling prejudicial to him/her as the post-procedural protection. 　　Chapter 5 is to make a conclusion of all issues above-mentioned, looking forward to analyzing the legal theories of procedure applied in non-contentious matters more elaborately to protect the substantive and procedural interests of the parties.