論民事保護令事件之程序標的與要件事實

家庭暴力防治法(下稱家暴法)於1998年制定，賦予被害人不必提起民事或刑事程序，即得聲請法院直接命相對人作為或不作為之救濟手段，避免因家庭暴力而發生不可回復之損害，與提供被害人暫時之救濟制度。嗣於2012年制定之家事事件法(下稱家事法)，根據事件類型審理必要論，依照事件類型之特性需求，將家事事件區分為五類事件，同時，於家事非訟之保全程序，增訂暫時處分制度，使其與家事訴訟事件(準用民事訴訟法)之保全處分制度，共同構成家事保全程序。依家事法第3條第5項第13款明定，民事保護令事件(下稱保護令事件)為丁類事件。保護令事件應如何納入家事法的架構，達成貫徹家暴法保護被害人與防治家庭暴力之目的，向來似並未透程序法的角度加以理解。依家暴法第9條所定通常保護令、暫時保護令及緊急保護令三種救濟途徑間之關係如何，亦與其在家事法中定位有關。上開問題之解決，涉及四大問題意識。首先，法院審理時應適用訴訟或非訟法理。第二，程序標的之內涵為何，聲請人應如何特定其程序標的。再者，保護令之要件事實為何，最後，涉及保護令之裁定效力。此等既成為解釋論之重要問題，其解決亦有助於釐清保護令在家事法之體系架構。本文擬透過比較日本法與美國法之研究，參照既有學說理論及審判實務見解，闡釋保護令事件之規定，確定訟爭性之判斷標準、程序標的概念之必要及特定、實體要件之解釋、要件事實之判斷、非訟裁定既判力之肯否見解等，對於理解保護令事件之定位係必要且有益。本文共計六章，第壹章為緒論，簡要說明研究動機與問題意識、研究方法與整體篇章架構。第貳章說明美國法上保護令事件。其中，第一節從體系性之角度，討論民事禁制令與保護令事件之關係。由於美國模範法與各州法規之規定不同，因此須採取廣義的保護令概念。透過與禁制令體系上觀察與比較之結果，可得出保護令與禁制令有相同與相似處。相似處在於，通常保護令對應永久禁制令，提供聲請人權利救濟之可能。緊急保護令(或一造保護令)則附隨於通常保護令存在，與暫時禁制令相似。相異處在於禁制令必定附隨於本案程序。第二節從各種保護令之比較，廣義概念之保護令主要可分為通常保護令、緊急保護令二種類型。通常保護令與緊急保護令兩者不同，但具有一定之連續性。關於聲請人請求之程式特定、要件事實之解釋以及裁定效力存在部分差異，結論上兩者為本案程序與中間程序之關係。第參章介紹日本法上保護令事件。首先，第一節從保護令與民事保全處分之比較出發，對於保護令與民事保全處分是否相同，學說存在同質說與異質說之爭論。分別自聲請程式、制度目的、核發要件、法律效果等層面觀察，應認為保護令與民事保全為不同類型之事件。此外，配偶暴力防止及被害者保護法(下稱家暴防止法)之新法修正後，保護令事件增訂一造保護令之類型。然而，文獻欠缺相對應的討論，尚有待實務和學說之發展。第二節部分，由於學說及實務見解並未意識到通常保護令之程序標的概念，主要探討通常保護令之實體要件與裁定效力。由於日本法係由聲請人決定聲請保護令之範圍，家暴防止法第10條對於被害人、被害人未成年子女、被害人親屬之保護令分別定有個別要件。再者，保護令核發後，再度聲請保護令之情形，主要分為不同種保護令與同種保護令之再度聲請。再度聲請不同種保護令，視為不同之程序標的，法院應進行實質審理。再度聲請同種保護令之情形，得再區分為退去命令或其他種類之命令。再度聲請退去命令之情形，應依家暴防止法第18條處理之；其它情形則適用家暴防止法第10條，法院應進行實質審理。第肆章回歸我國法上保護令制度之特色與非訟事件之程序標的概念。第一節介紹保護令之公益性與非訟性，與公權主義具有密切關係。探究保護令之法理係基於憲法保障人性尊嚴所衍生之「家庭暴力侵害制止請求權」，又可分為「家暴侵害防止權」以及「生活環境自主決定權」。再者，非訟性得從實定法上規定外，從本質論出發為文探討。為落實家事法制定後紛爭審理類型必要論之旨趣，得出保護令性質上為非訟事件，應適用非訟法理處理之。第二節探討保護令之程序標的內涵，基於通常保護令之法理為家暴侵害制止請求權，獨立於一般非訟程序和保全程序，依家暴法第14條第1項規定，程序標的為「家庭暴力之事實」與「必要性」。暫時與緊急保護令之參考民事保全處分之程序標的，構造上包含「被保全權利」與「必要性」。第伍章為保護令事件之要件事實與裁定效力。第一節探究保護令之要件事實。參考日本學說，家事事件是否存在要件事實存有爭議。然而，建立要件事實能夠具體化法院應考量之要素，比起綜合判斷，標準更為明確。家暴法第14條第1項，通常保護令之要件包含「家庭暴力事實」與「必要性」。在美國、日本法之解釋，「必要性」屬於「利益衡量」之判斷。然而，本文認為，以非訟事件存在要件事實概念為前提，「必要性」為被害人有無繼續發生家暴危險之規範要件，須進一步探究評價「必要性」之評價根據與評價障礙事實。至於暫時保護令及緊急保護令之要件事實，法院辦理家暴案件應行注意事項13點，暫時保護令之「繼續受相對人虐待、威嚇、傷害或其他身體上、精神上不法侵害之危險」，以及家暴法第16條第1項規定，緊急保護令之「急迫危險」，皆屬於規範性要件。依「臺灣親密關係危險評估量表」所列之十五項因素，得作為核發保護令之必要性或被害人受不法侵害危險之評價根據事實。第二節探究通常保護令事件之裁定效力。非訟裁定有無既判力之見解，雖存在本質論與根據論之爭議，但非訟裁定須具有正當性和必要性基礎，始具有既判力適格。經檢視既判力之正當性與必要性基礎，保護令欠缺既判力適格。然而，通常保護令仍須兼具法安定性需求，發揮一事不再理之功能。為此，如不符合家暴法列舉延長、變更、撤銷通常保護令之情形，法院應駁回同一事件之請求。最後，第陸章總結本文研究成果。

關鍵字

民事保護令；通常保護令；暫時保護令；緊急保護令；非訟事件；程序標的；要件事實；既判力

並列摘要

The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Act) was enacted in 1998. It provided the measure of relief for victims who didn’t have to initiate civil or criminal proceedings and plead the court to order the counterpart to act or omit, and established a system to avoid irreversible damage due to domestic violence and provide temporary relief to the victim. Therefore, the Family Act was enacted in 2012. based on the contentious degrees of matters, family events are divided into five categories. At the same time, the appropriate injunction was added to the provisional remedies for family non-contentious matters, so that the provisional remedies system and it for family litigation matter (applicable to the civil procedure law) together constitute a family provisional remedies proceeding. Furthermore, according to Article 3, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 13 of Family Act, civil protection order matters (hereinafter referred to as protection order matters) are classified as Category D matters, but how protection order incidents should be included in the framework of the Family Act to achieve the purpose to protect victims and to prevent them from domestic violence has never been understood from the perspective of procedural law. According to Article 9 of the Domestic Violence Act, the relationship among the three remedies of ordinary protection orders, temporary protection orders, and emergency protection orders is also related to their position in Family Act. The solution to the problem described above involves the awareness of four major issues. First of all, litigation or non-contentious principles should be applied in the civil protection order. Secondly, what is the subject of the civil protection order and how the claimant should specify its subject. Furthermore, finding the relevant facts and the validity of the protection order, have become an important issue of the legal interpretation, for it also helps clarifying the system of the protection order within the Family Act. This article compares the research of Japanese law and American law, also refers to the existing discussion to help explain the provisions of protection order matters, such as the criterion for determining the litigation or non- contentious matters, the necessity of the concept of the procedural subject, and how to specify it, the interpretation of the substantive elements, and the judgment of the relevant facts, whether res judicata exits in a non-contentious judgment, etc., are necessary and beneficial for understanding the position of the protection order matters. This article consists of six chapters. The first chapter is the Introduction which briefly describes the research motivation and the problem awareness, research methods and overall chapter structure. Chapter 2 explains the protection order incident in the US law. Among them, the first section discusses the relationship between civil injunction orders and protection order incidents from a systemic perspective. Since the U.S. Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence varies from the state code, here the research adopted a broad concept of protection orders. Through observation and comparison with the injunction system, it can be concluded that protection orders and injunction orders resemble each other. The similarity is that the ordinary protection order and the corresponding permanent injunction provide the remedy for the claimant's rights. An emergency protection order (or ex parte order) is attached to the ordinary protection order, which is similar to a temporary injunction. The difference is that the injunction must be attached to the procedure of the case. The second section compares various protection orders, the broad concept of protection orders can generally be divided into two types: Ordinary protection orders and Emergency protection orders. Ordinary protection orders and Emergency protection orders are different, however, they do have some continuity. There are some differences in the specification of the claimant's request, the interpretation of relevant facts, and the effectiveness of the ruling. In conclusion, the relationship between the two orders can be seen as the summary procedure of the case and the intermediate procedure. The third chapter introduces the different types of protection orders matters in Japanese law. Above all, the first section starts with the comparison between the protection order and the civil provisional measures. As to whether the protection order and the civil provisional measures are the same, there is a dispute between the homogeneity theory and the heterogeneity theory. From the perspective of the application procedure, the system purpose, the requirements for issuance, and the legal effect, protection orders and civil provisional measures are different types of events. In addition, after Act on the Prevention of Spousal Violence and the Protection of Victims (hereinafter referred to as the Domestic Violence Prevention Act) is amended, the protection order adds the ex parte order. However, the lack of a corresponding discussion in the literature so the follow-up development remains to be seen. Since materials of practice and theory in Japan don’t mention the subject of the ordinary protection order, the second section discusses the substantive requirements and the effectiveness of the ruling of various types of protection orders. Since the claimant determines the scope of the protection order, Article 10 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act applies to the victim, the victim’s underage children, and the victim’s relatives, following by individual requirements. Furthermore, after the issuance of the protection order, the situation of repetition is mainly divided into repetition of various types of protection orders and the same type of protection order. Once a different kind of protection order is filed again, it would be regarded as a distinct procedural subject. In hence, the court should conduct a substantial trial. The reclaiming of the same kind of protection order may be divided into stay-away orders or other types of orders. In the case of repetition of the stay-away order, it shall be dealt with in accordance with Article 18 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act; in other cases, Article 10 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act shall apply, and the court shall conduct a substantial trial. Chapter 4 returns to the characteristics of the protection order system in our country and the concept of the procedural subject of non-contentious matters. The first section introduces the public interest and non-contentious nature of the protection order, which is closely related to the doctrine of ex officio. Following, discussing the legal principles of the protection order is based on the "right to cease the domestic violence violations" derived from the protection of human dignity in our Constitution. It can be further divided into the "right to prevent domestic violence violations" and the "right to make decisions about the living environment." Furthermore, the non-contentious nature can be discussed from the legal interpretation, can also be discussed from the essence theory. To implement the purpose of the contentious degrees of matters, it can conclude that the nature of the protection order is a non-contentious matter, so it should apply to non-contentious principles. The second section discusses the procedural subject of the protection order. Because the ordinary protection order is derived from “right to cease the domestic violence violations” it’s independent from general non-contentious and provisional proceedings. According to Article 14 Section 1 of the Domestic Violence Act, the procedural subject can be divided into "domestic violence facts" and "necessity". Temporary and emergency protection orders refer to the procedural subject of civil provisional measures, and the procedural subject includes "injunction claim" and "the need for protection". Chapter 5 is about the relevant facts and the effect of the ruling of the protection order. The first section is to explore the relevant facts of the protection order. Referring to the theory in Japan, there is a dispute about whether there are relevant facts within the family matters, however, the establishment of the relevant facts can specify the elements that the court should consider, which is much more clear than the synthetic judgment standard. Pursuant to Article 14, Section 1 of the Domestic Violence Act, the elements of the ordinary protection order include "domestic violence facts" and "the necessity". Under the interpretation of American and Japanese laws, "the necessity" is a judgment of " trade-off." However, based on non-contentious matters exist relevant facts, "the necessity" is a normative element for whether the victim is at risk of continuous domestic violence, and the article further explores supporting valuation facts and hindering valuation facts of "the necessity". As for the relevant facts of the temporary protection order and emergency protection order, according to Article 13 of Guideline of the Domestic Violence Matters For The Court and Article 16 section 1 of Domestic Violence Act, "continues to be abused, intimidated, injured by the counterparty, or other physical or mentally illegal infringements." of the temporary protection order, as well as "imminent danger" of the emergency protection order are both normative elements. Based on the fifteen factors listed in the " Taiwan Intimate Partner Violence Danger Assessment (TIPVDA) " can be used to evaluate “the necessity” of issuing a protection order or supporting valuation facts of normative elements. The second section digs into the effectiveness of the ruling of the ordinary protection order matters. Among them, although there is a dispute whether there is res judicata to non-contentious rulings, res judicata should be on the basis of legitimacy and necessity. After examining the legitimacy and necessity, the protection order lacks res judicata. However, ordinary protection orders are still necessary to contain both legal stability requirements and prevent double jeopardy. For this reason, if the case does not comply with the circumstances listed in the Domestic Violence Act to extend, modify, or revoke the ordinary protection order, the court shall reject the repetition. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the research results of this article.

並列關鍵字

Civil Protection Order ； Ordinary Protection Order ； Temporary Protection Order ； Emergency Protection Order ； Non-contentitious Matters ； Procedural Subject ； Relevant Facts ； Res Judicata