裁判離婚事由中「不堪同居之虐待」之實證研究

我國民法第1052條第1項第3款之「不堪同居之虐待」，以及同項第4款，夫妻之一方與他方直系親屬間之虐待致「不堪為共同生活」，將家庭暴力作為裁判離婚事由，並且都以「不堪同居之虐待」作為構成要件。1985年民法修法時，第1052條新增第2項，「有前項以外之重大事由，難以維持婚姻者」，亦得請求離婚，將破綻主義導入裁判離婚制度，使受有家庭暴力之婚姻關係當事人自此多了一個可能的請求權基礎。「不堪同居之虐待」屬不確定法律概念，實務運作上，法院在判斷該離婚事由是否成立時，會考量哪些因素？當事人以家庭暴力為事由訴請離婚，進入訴訟後可能面臨哪些困難？而當事人以同一事實主張第1項第3款（或第4款）及同條第2項，法院在適用法條時是否有不同之考量？以上實務運作層面之問題，以實證研究來分析最為適當。從而，本研究以2010年至2018年間，法院實際審酌民法第1052條第1項第3款、第4款之第一審裁判共1,008件作為素材，分析並探討我國家庭暴力相關之裁判離婚實務發展情形，得出之研究結果包括：1.家庭暴力舉證不易；2.法院認定有無「不堪同居之虐待」時，考量之因素繁多且標準嚴格，尤其重視暴力行為嚴重性、發生頻率，以及發生原因；3.部分實務判決過度拘泥於法條文字，悖於裁判離婚制度目的；4.民法第1052條第1項第3款、第4款完全能被同條第2項涵蓋；5.夫妻之一方無正當理由逕自分居，屬有責行為。最後，針對我國裁判離婚制度之未來發展提出研究建議，在立法方面，包括應刪除民法第1052條第1項第3款、第4款，將涉及家庭暴力之離婚訴訟以同條第2項處理，以及應在法條中設立「婚姻破裂」之參考判準，並逐漸邁向有條件的破綻主義。在實務方面，不宜再依循早期實務對「不堪同居之虐待」之判準，且不應再將「主動分居」視為民法第1052條第2項但書之有責行為，否則適用法條之結果，可能對欲解消破裂婚姻之當事人過苛。

關鍵字

民法第1052條第1項第3款；民法第1052條第1項第4款；民法第1052條第2項；裁判離婚；家庭暴力；婚姻暴力；實證研究；皮爾森卡方檢定；邏輯斯迴歸

並列摘要

Specific grounds for divorce are listed in Paragraph 1, Article 1052 of the Taiwan Civil Code, among which “rendering common living intolerable,” similar to intolerable cruelty, is taken as an essential factor of Subparagraphs 3 and 4, which are related to domestic violence. In 1985 law reform, Paragraph 2 was created and added into Article 1052, stating that the spouse can sue for divorce based on the breakdown of marriage. Since then, spouses have had one more option to request divorce on the grounds of domestic violence. However, “common living intolerable” is actually an uncertain legal concept. How does the court apply it to an individual case? What difficulties will the party face while petitioning for a juridical divorce due to domestic violence? If one party uses Subparagraph 3 (or Subparagraph 4) of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 1052 to file for divorce based on the same facts in the same proceeding, what will the court consider while applying these two different grounds? To answer the practical questions above, empirical study seems to be the most effective research method. Therefore, 1,008 divorce cases of District Court from 2010 to 2018 are chosen to be the material to analyze and discuss the development of the practice of judicial divorce related to domestic violence. Through the empirical analysis, this research found that: 1. It is difficult for the plaintiff to prove that he or she suffered domestic violence; 2. When the court determines whether there is "abuse rendering common living intolerable", the factors to be considered are diverse and the standards are strict, with particular attention to the severity, frequency, and causes of violence; 3. Some cases are too confined to the text of the provision, which might go against the purpose of the divorce system; 4. Subparagraphs 3 and 4, Paragraph 1 of Article 1052 can be completely covered by Paragraph 2 of the same Article; 5. The spouse who refuses to live together without a good cause will be regarded as responsible for the breakdown of the marriage by the court. Finally, this paper proposes recommendations for the future development of the divorce system in Taiwan. In terms of legislation, first, Subparagraphs 3 and 4, Paragraph 1, Article 1052 of the Civil Code shall be deleted, and divorce cases involving domestic violence should be judged in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the same Article. Second, an objective criterion for "marriage breakdown" should be established in the law, and our divorce system shall conditionally allow the spouse at fault to request divorce. In terms of practice, the court shall stop following the precedent on “abuse rendering common living intolerable”. And moreover, the court shall not regard “refusal to live with the other party” as a responsible act in the provision of Paragraph 2, Article 1052 of Civil Code. Otherwise, the result of applying so may be too harsh on the party who wants to dissolve the broken marriage.

並列關鍵字

Civil Code Article 1052 ； Grounds for Divorce ； Domestic Violence ； Marital Violence ； Empirical Study ； Pearson’s Chi-Squared Test ； Logistic Regression