民事訴訟法上第二審失權之研究

The study on Preclusion Effect in the second instance of Civil Procedure

劉雅雲(Ya -Yun Liou)

指導教授 ： 吳從周

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2011年)

摘要

我國民事訴訟法於二○○三年一月十四日修正第四百四十七條規定，修正後第一項明定原則上禁止當事人於第二審提出新攻擊或防禦方法，並設六款之例外規定。故針對第二審新攻擊防禦方法之提出，乃採「原則限制，例外准許」之立法方式。
修法後民事訴訟法第四百四十七條之規定，針對失權基本原則下設有六款例外，主要架構與德國法相同，在於是否「因第一審法院程序上之瑕疵而未提出」以及「非因當事人之過失而未於第一審提出」。惟較為特殊者，則係同條第一項第三款之「對於在第一審已提出之攻擊防禦方法為補充」和第六款「如不許提出顯失公平」，此兩款規定均為我國法所獨有，然其於規範意涵上十分抽象，適用上不免產生諸多疑義，但或亦係因其概括抽象之本質，反成為實務在適用失權條款之大宗，形成「逃入概括條款」之現象。
再者，第一審失權的目的在於乃集中審理之考量，第二審失權的目的則主要只是為確保第一審失權的效果。從而在我國法中第一百九十六條雖規定於總則編，但於失權規定間之適用關係上，則應僅適用於第一審失權的案型。然而實務在判斷第二審失權時，卻常將「延滯訴訟與否」此一第一審失權所考量之要件，納入第二審失權作檢驗，甚至跳過第四百四十七條之規定，直接檢驗第一百九十六條之規定，使得第二審原則禁止更新權之修法意旨被架空。尤有甚者，最高法院有判決似參考第二百五十五條第七款「不甚礙被告之防禦及訴訟之終結」此一訴之變更追加之例外規定，創設出「無礙於程序之終結及當事人權益之保障」，作為第二審失權之第七種例外，如此一再放寬失權例外之結果，將使第二審失權規定有完全崩潰之虞。
故本文擬藉由實務判決之整理，觀察實務於第二審失權規定之運用現狀，並思考實務見解中之諸多疑問，評析其不合理之處，希冀能藉此釐清相關失權規定之解釋與適用，達成修法目的。

關鍵字

失權 ； 更新權 ； 攻擊防禦方法 ； 適時提出 ； 集中審理 ； 訴訟促進 ； 顯失公平 ； 法官知法 ； 爭點整理 ； 時效抗辯 ； 闡明 ； 爭點簡化 ； 訴之變更追加 ； 訴訟延滯 ； 時效抗辯 ； 抵銷抗辯

並列摘要

In January 14, 2003, Article 447 of the civil procedure law has been modified, in which section 1 prohibits one party from bringing out new attacking or defensive measures in principle, and sets six exception clauses. So when it comes to bringing out new attacking or defensive measures in the second instance, our legislation sets the rule which prohibits in principle, permits in exception.

After the modification, Article 447 of the civil procedure law sets six exception clauses for the basic principles of Preclusion. The main structure is the same as German, whose premises are whether the failure of bringing out is due to flaws of court’s procedures in the first instance and whether the failure of bringing out is due to one party’s fault. Especially Paragraph 3, Section 1 of that article specifying that those who supplement the attacking and defensive measures already brought out in the first instance, and Paragraph 6, Section 1 of which specifying that if it seems obviously unfair to not allow bringing out new attacking and defensive measures are unique to our legal system. However, it seems quite abstract in the regulatory meaning, thus raising quite a few disputes. But maybe due to its abstract essence, these clauses have been widely adopted in practice, creating a “escaping into abstract clauses” phenomenon.

Moreover, the purpose of Preclusion in the first instance is for concentration trial in court. The purpose of Preclusion in the second instance, however, is mainly for ensuring Preclusion effects in the first instance. Therefore, though Article 196 is regulated in the general provisions, but when it comes to application, this Article should be applied only to cases in the first instance. However, in legal practice, when we judge whether Preclusion effect is applied in the second instance, we often take into consideration the element that whether the procedure was delayed, which is restricted to the first instance, even neglecting article 447, and refer directly to Article 196. By doing this, the regulatory purpose of the law concerning the second instance will no more exist. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rulings which consult Article 255, Section 7 of civil procedure law, creating the 7th exception, but if we extend this exception constantly, the meaning of Preclusion clause can be jeopardized.

This article observes the legal practices of Preclusion clause in the second instance by searching legal rulings, contemplating on several questions aroused by legal practices, comment on these questions, and hopefully make a clearer picture of this Preclusion clause.

並列關鍵字

preclusion effect ； the second instance of civil procedure ； Article 447 of the civil procedure law ； concentration trial ； obviously unfair

參考文獻

5、 吳明軒，民事訴訟法（上），二○○七年九月。

6、 吳明軒，中國民事訴訟法（中），二○○四年。

7、 吳明軒，中國民事訴訟法（下），二○○四年。

15、姚瑞光，近年修正民事訴訟法總評，二○○五年。

16、許士宦，第二審程序新攻擊防禦方法之提出，輯於氏著＜程序保障與闡明義務＞，新學林，二○○六年九月。