剩餘財產分配「顯失公平」審酌因素之實證研究

本研究針對民國109年底修法前之民法第1030條之1第2項進行實證研究。該條文於民國74年立法時並無明確規範剩餘財產平均分配「顯失公平」之判斷標準。「顯失公平」係不確定之法律概念，在構成要件不足之情況下，法院判決理由中多以「不務正業、浪費成習」等立法理由例示之情狀作為審酌因素。加以近十五年來剩餘財產分配之判決數量大幅增長，此類訴訟重要性日增，故本研究認為有判決實證研究之必要。本研究針對剩餘財產分配時，法院判斷是否有顯失公平情狀之各項審酌因素，進行判決編碼、整理、敘述性統計分析。試回答本研究所提出之疑問：法院判斷剩餘財產平均分配是否顯失公平時，審酌因素有哪些？法院審酌因素時，於判斷上是否有男／女請求對象之差別？立法理由中欲彰顯的「家務勞動價值」，於法院判決中是否有被實際審酌？如何被審酌？從而，本研究以民國99年至108年近十年間，全國地方法院實際審酌民法第1030條之1第2項之第一審裁判共235件作為研究資料，分析並探討我國剩餘財產分配制度相關之實務情形，得出之觀察結果包括：1. 目前法院對於審酌因素之判斷標準並不一致；2. 審酌某些審酌因素時存有性別差異；3. 家務勞動為審酌因素之頻率相對較低且內涵並無定義；並進而得出本研究之結論：1. 家務勞動價值不應作為參與分配正當性之唯一標準；2. 應限縮民法第1030條之1第2項調整權之適用。最後，針對法院所審酌因素之當否，提出本研究之建議，並試評析民國109年底修法通過後之民法第1030條之1所增訂之判斷標準。新法雖試圖對判斷標準予以明文化，惟從研究結果觀察，仍應注意法院採擇審酌因素時是否存在性別差異，避免對特定性別審查過苛。

關鍵字

民法第1030條之1第2項；夫妻財產制；剩餘財產分配；顯失公平；實證研究；敘述性統計

並列摘要

This research is an empirical study based on Article 1030-1 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code before the amendment in the end of 2020. The Article did not clearly regulate the judgment standard when enacting. "Obviously unfair" is an uncertain legal concept. In addition, in the past 15 years, the amount of judgments on the distribution of the remainder of statutory matrimonial property has increased significantly, and made such litigation more important. Therefore, this research believes that empirical study on judgments is necessary. This research focuses on the various consideration factors for the court to determine whether there are obvious unfairness in the distribution of the remainder of statutory matrimonial property, and conducts judgments coding, sorting, and narrative statistical analysis. Try to answer the questions raised by this research: When the court judges whether the equal distribution of the remainder of statutory matrimonial property is obviously unfair, what are the consideration factors? When the court considers the factors, is there a difference in the judgment of the subject of the male/female petition? Is the "housework value" demonstrated in the judgments? How is it to be considered? Therefore, this research uses 235 first-instance judgments in the past ten years from 2010 to 2019 of the district courts to analyze and discuss the distribution of the remainder of statutory matrimonial property in our country. Relevant practical situations, and the research results obtained include: (1) the current judgement standards of the court for the discretionary factors are inconsistent; (2) there are differences by gender when considering certain factors; (3) housework is one of the discretionary factors but the count is relatively low and the connotation is not defined; (4) the value of housework should not be used as the only criterion for the legitimacy of participation in distribution; (5) the application of adjustment in Article 1030-1 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code should be restricted. Finally, in view of whether the factors considered by the court should be present or not, and the amendment of Article 1030-1 of the Civil Code at the end of 2020, this research will provide some advises. Although the new law attempts to clarify the criteria for judgment, from the observation of research results, attention should be paid to whether there are differences by gender in when the court adopting of discretionary factors, so as to avoid excessively rigorous review of specific gender.