民事簡易訴訟程序之研究—以事件類型與救濟為中心

A Study on Summary Proceeding in Civil Procedure Law-Focusing on the Types of Action and the Remedies

林兆薇(Chao-Wei Lin)

指導教授 ： 吳從周

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2015年)

摘要

我國民事訴訟法自民國19年12月26日立法即簡易訴訟程序之設立，除民國102年因家事事件法增訂調整簡易訴訟之類型以外，簡易訴訟最後一次大規模的修正係於民國88年間，主要針對簡易訴訟類型調整，至今已過16年。簡易訴訟之類型適用上實務有許多爭議，本文主要整理臺灣高等法院法律座談會內容，並以臺灣臺北地方法院民國102年1月1日起至103年12月31日宣判之簡易訴訟第二審判決作為抽樣基礎，統計民事訴訟法第427條各類型適用分布比例。
有關簡易訴訟審理的部分，現行簡易訴訟程序仍存在立法之初所訂立之條文，又過去立法者為縮減審理所花費、勞力、時間、費用所增訂的條文，本文擬透過學說的整理、實務適用的情況討論現行條文的妥適性，並以德國法作為修法的借鏡。
第三審之部分，著重在民國79年所增訂上訴許可制的檢討。此部分有透過兩個方式觀察，第一透過第二審以民事訴訟法第436條之3第3項駁回上訴之統計數據，對照第三審駁回上訴第三審的數據對照，觀察第二審有無發揮篩選判決的功能。第二歸納整理簡易訴訟第三審所闡釋的法律原則重要性，觀察內涵是否與當初立法為借鏡德國法之方向相符。
簡易訴訟之類型經本文觀察有五點問題： 一、程序適用不公平、二、條文規範過於狹隘、三、類型涉及專業法規、四、訴訟態樣繁雜、五、適用機率不高。另就審理之部分，部分現行條文常年受學者非議且現行實務操作下幾無適用。而簡易訴訟上訴許可制，自統計數據可知第三審駁回上訴許可之案件量遠大於第二審駁回之數量，又第三審闡明解釋之法律見解，多半為最高法院已闡述說明之法律原則，於此情況本文以為我國現行簡易訴訟第三審上訴許可制之內涵與德國法爲從事法的續造或爲確保司法裁判之一致性之方向，略為不同。

關鍵字

適時審判請求權 ； 法律上原則重要性 ； 簡易訴訟類型 ； 公正程序請求權 ； 上訴許可制

並列摘要

The Civil Procedure Law was enacted on December 26th 1930, and the summary proceedings was enacted at the same time. Except for the amendment made to adjust to the enactment of Laws of Domestic Proceedings, summary proceedings’ last large-scale amendment was made in 1999. The 1999 amendment’s paramount focus was on the types of summary proceedings. 16 years have passed since the 1999 amendment, nonetheless, various controversies exist in court practice. This essay mainly focuses on summarizing the opinions of Taiwan High Court regarding the summary proceedings made in legal seminars. In addition, based on sampling of Taiwan Taipei District Court’s decisions made in the second instance of summary proceedings during the period of January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2014, this essay collects statistics of application of each type of summary proceedings, and concludes the proportion of possibility for each type stipulated in Civil Procedure Law Article 427 being applied.
In terms of court practice in summary proceedings, the original stipulations, made to save time, effort and cost for trial, and enacted by the law makers back then, still exist at present. This essay attempts to discuss the suitability of the present stipulations by means of reviewing the comments from scholars, and courts’ trial practice, and stipulation of summary proceedings in German laws.
With regard to the third instance, the emphasis is placed upon scrutinizing “Approval to Appeal” which requires approval from the second instance for submitting an appeal to the third instance in summary proceedings. In scrutinizing “Approval to Appeal”, this essays endeavors to do it from two aspects. First, by comparing the amount of denial made in accordance with Civil Procedure Law Article 436-3 Section 3 by the second instance with amount of denial made by the third instance, it enables us to examine if the second instance has efficiently filtered out the appeals. Second, by summarizing significance of legal principles articulated by the third instance specified in judgements, we are able to examine whether the substance of significant legal principles are consistent with the orientation that German laws adopts, to which the law makers made reference.
This essays points out five issues regarding types of summary proceedings: (1) The procedure is unfair. (2) Limited scope in application of law. (3) Professional regulations are involved in certain types. (4) Numerous types in summary proceedings. (5) Relatively low possibility for application. In addition to types, there are several issues in the court practice. First, some of the stipulations still exist at present, yet are criticized by scholars, and seldom applied under current court practice. Following the first issue, in terms of “Approval to Appeal” in summary proceedings, it shows in the statistics that amount of denial from the third instance is much larger than from the second instance which grants the approvals. Moreover, the legal opinions articulated by the third instance are often stated by the Supreme Court already. In such scenario, the substance of “Approval to Appeal” in summary proceedings in Taiwan has a minor difference compared with the orientation adopted by German laws, which are the functions of the third instance’s in continuance of law-making and security in the consistency of judgements.

並列關鍵字

Permision to review appeals ； Fundamental significance ； The right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time ； Fair trial right ； Types of summary proceedings

參考文獻

20.姚瑞光，近年修正民事訴訟法總評，弘揚，94年5月版。

4.黃國昌，我國勞動訴訟之實證研究-以第一審之審理與終結情形為中心（上），政大法學評論，第106期，2008年12月，頁203至頁247。

陳亭禎，訴訟標的價額核定之研究，國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文，2013年5月。

參考書目

一、中文部分