附帶民事訴訟制度之研究-以法院審理實務為中心

A Study on Adhesive Procedure-Focusing on the Court Practice

林心瀅(Hsin-Ying 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

附帶民事訴訟制度存在我國法制之時間已久，惟在實務及學說上對本制度之適用或討論並不多見見。通說認為，附帶民事訴訟係立法者在追求訴訟經濟並避免民、刑事裁判矛盾之目的下所制定，期期待利用同一訴訟程序一併解決民、刑事紛爭，一方面以行使國家刑罰權，另一方面則使被害人之損害迅速獲得陪賠償所設。本制度之立法目的固然良善，然而由於法規範已近五十年未曾修正，在實務務之適用上不免發生闕漏而迭生爭議，同時對於當事人而言亦將產生訴訟程序上之不確定性，而與法法律要求之明確性有違。
本文嘗試從現行法規範出發，除先介紹附帶民事訴訟制度在我國刑事訴訟法之修法歷程外，亦宜一併論及比較法例中之德國法、法國法及中國大陸之制度，且以德國法作為我國制度之比較對象。更接著進一步探討分析各該法規範之規範意旨與架構，並且將涉及訴訟程序合法要件之當事人、請求權權基礎、請求範圍逐一進行論述，再輔以實務判決作為分析研究之對象，從中歸納出現行實務於適用用附帶民事訴訟程序時所遵循之法理或發展出之不成文規則或標準，其中並對於現行實務所採用判斷斷附帶民事訴訴訟合法性要件之標準提出質疑，並嘗試提出解決方案。此外更對於附帶民事訴訟制度度中實務上目前使用最為頻繁之裁定移送制度分析其立法之優劣，同時以判決及實際案例之分析結果果得出本制度在規範上之不足與立法目的間之扞格，並嘗試提出修法建議與方向。最後就附帶民事訴訟中關於法規範之準用制度、事實及證據之認定與民事法間損害賠償請求範圍之互動提出建議。

關鍵字

法規範保護法益 ； 裁判一致性 ； 訴訟經濟 ； 附帶民事訴訟 ； 裁定移送 ； 時效利益

並列摘要

Despite adhesion procedure’s long existence in Taiwanese legal system, less has been applied or discussed in terms of such procedure in academic field or in court practice. It is widely accepted that the adhesion procedure was enacted in pursuit of economic benefit for litigation and avoidance of contradiction between civil and criminal judgement for the same fact. Additionally, it is expected that issues in dispute, whether civil or criminal, may be resolved within one single procedure; accordingly, the authorities’ power to punish can be exercised, and the victims’ damages can be compensated expeditiously. The adhesion procedure is enacted out of good intent, yet given the fact that it has not been amended for almost 50 years, and with the existence of loopholes in such system, controversies arise inevitably from application of the adhesion procedure. In the meantime, due to the foregoing controversies applying the adhesion procedure, ambiguity in litigation proceedings occurs to the parties-which is in violation of the principle of legal certainty.
This essay first introduces the current laws regarding adhesion procedure. Apart from introducing adhesion procedure’s history of amendment in Taiwanese Code of Criminal Procedure, it is better to put the German, French, and Chinese legal system with regard to adhesion procedures into discussion, and to focus on the German laws as a comparison to Taiwanese laws. Then, the discussion moves on to the purpose and legal structure of Taiwanese adhesion procedure stipulations; and further discussion shall be placed on the legal standing of parties, legal basis, and scope of the claims involved in the adhesion procedure. Such discussion is supplemented with court judgements as the target for analysis, hoping to summarize the legal principles courts adhere to, or unwritten rules or standards adopted by courts when applying adhesion procedure. This essay challenges the foregoing rules or standards adopted by courts when determining the legality of adhesion procedures requested by victims, and attempts to propose solutions to dilemmas encountered by courts. On top of that, emphasis has been placed on the system that the criminal court may transfer the case requesting for adhesion procedure to civil court (“Transferring System”), which is constantly adopted by criminal courts; this essay also attempts to scrutinize the pros and cons of Transferring System, pointing out the deficiency of stipulation in, and the incompatibility with the purpose of adhesion procure with the results of analysis on the cases ruled by courts. Accordingly, advices and guidance for amendment of adhesion procedure are presented in this essay as well. Lastly, advices on applying mutatis mutandis of the laws, determination of the facts and evidences, and the scope of compensation in relation to the civil laws are proposed as the end of this essay.

並列關鍵字

Legal Interest in Legal Protection ； Consistency in Judgements ； Economic Principle of Litigation ； Adhesive Procedure ； Transferring System ； Legal Interest in Statute of Limitations

參考文獻

3.王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕，刑事訴訟法(上)，自版，2013年二版。

13.林永謀，刑事訴訟法釋論，自版，2007年。

3.李淑如，消滅時效-最高法院九十四年台上字第一八六三號民事判決，月旦裁判時報，第23期，2013年10月，頁121至頁129。

8.林山田，割裂式的刑事司法-評最高法院八十九年度台非字第八十七號判決，月旦法學雜誌，第90期，2002年11月，頁299至頁304。

18.黃國昌，刑事附帶民事訴訟移送民事庭後之合法要件審查-以最高法院九八年度台上字第一八六三號判決為楔，台灣法學雜誌，第144期，2010年1