論撤銷仲裁判斷之訴所衍生消滅時效之爭議問題

工程契約之履行，往往因雙方當事人對契約內容認知不同而產生糾紛或爭議，進而步上訴訟或仲裁之途。一般的工程糾紛解決機制中，仲裁制度相較於傳統訴訟，更能快速、和平解決當事人之間糾紛，然並非所有的仲裁判斷都可滿足雙方當事人之請求。實務上曾發生當事人馬特拉公司在工程款給付請求權經仲裁獲得有利判斷，並取得法院執行許可裁定，對造台北市捷運局提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴並於第一審取得勝訴判決，法院依當事人請求以仲裁法第42條第2項之規定撤銷原執行許可，致當事人無法藉由聲請「強制執行」中斷時效，導致產生「時效完成」之結果發生。本文針對前人研究論文中所探討有關馬特拉案件之仲裁判斷是否適用民法第137條第3項、撤銷仲裁判斷訴訟之影響及權利濫用等問題為重點，對本案所牽涉出強制執行在仲裁判斷之時效適用問題、撤銷仲裁判斷之訴對消滅時效之影響及權利濫用之適用問題進行探討。在上開問題當中，本文認為，不同於訴訟判決之實質效力，仲裁判斷基於民間性之特質其只是欠缺一件具有公權力性質的強制執行力的「外衣」。仲裁判斷後當事人依法向法院聲請執行許可並取得「強制執行力」之程序，就等同於我們拿到這具公權力性質的外衣，因此仲裁判斷應適用民法137條第3項，經確定判決或其他與確定判決有同一效力之執行名義所確定之請求權的規定。又，本文認為當仲裁判斷做成後，對照提出撤銷仲裁判斷之訴時，則自駁回撤銷仲裁判斷之訴起，時效重行起算；仲裁判斷做成後與法院之確定判決有同一效力，故時效應與民法第128條規定，消滅時效自取得執行力無客觀上障礙開始起算。由此類推適用，仲裁判斷請求權之時效應自判斷做成後時效開始起算。而仲裁法第41條第2項規定當事人提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴者，應於判斷書交付或送達之日起，三十日之不變期間內為之，條文中之三十日應是給予被判決不利益之當事者聲請救濟途徑而設。本文認為如果此訴訟已作成判決，且被判決不利益之當事者，未上訴前，若持已遭撤銷之仲裁判斷向法院聲請強制執行，法院依法應予駁回。但此訴訟如再上訴，其原本遭原審法院撤銷之仲裁判斷，因上訴使訴訟效力又恢復不定狀態，可使仲裁判斷也恢復未被撤銷前的狀態。只要合法上訴，該仲裁判斷之效力就會回到效力未定時，所以原被判決不利益之當事人本應可以拿我們認為已恢復未被撤銷前的仲裁判斷再次向法院聲請強制執行，且依法並無不妥當。

關鍵字

工程契約；消滅時效；撤銷仲裁判斷之訴；仲裁

並列摘要

Through the execution of contract, many disputes and arguments may lead to litigation or arbitration due to perception differences in both parties. Among the settlement mechanisms for construction disputes, the arbitration can settle the disputes between both parties more quickly and harmonically. However, not all arbitration decision can satisfy both parties’ requests. For example, the Matra Company received a favorable arbitration decision for claim for construction payment collection and obtained court permission to execute on a judgment. Comparing to Taipei MRT’s claim for dismissing charges settled by arbitration decision, Taipei MRT won its case at the court of first instance based on the permission for quashing original execution stated in page 2 of article 42. The prescription could not be completed even the parties request for a “compulsory enforcement” to breach the prescription. This research focuses on previous studies of Matra case about whether the page 3 of article 137 of civil law is taken for the consideration of arbitration decision, the impact of dismissing charges of arbitration decision and abuse rights. Further, the topics related to the compulsory enforcement involves in the prescription of arbitration decision, the impact of the negative prescription on the dismiss charges settled by arbitration decision and the issues of the abuse rights is further discussed. Unlike the effective enforcement of judgment, the arbitration decision is based on civil practice which is lack of an outer clothing represented the public authority for compulsory enforcement. Once the arbitration decision is concluded, the parties can make a request for obtaining permission of the “compulsory enforcement” according to the law. This process is similar to getting the outer clothing of public authority. As a result, the arbitration decision should comply with page 3 of article 137 of civil law to confirm the request through final judgment or the enforcement with the same effect. When the arbitration decision is concluded and the claim for dismissing charges of the arbitration decision is submitted, this study believes the prescription will be recounted as long as the request is denied. According to article 128 of civil law, the negative prescription will start to be counted from the moment of obtaining enforcement authority with no objective barriers if the arbitration decision has the same effectiveness with court’s final decision. Accordingly, the prescription of the request for arbitration should be counted once the decision is concluded. Under article 2, section 41 of arbitration act, the parties should claim for dismissing charges of arbitration decision within 30 days after receiving judgment. The purpose is to allow the unfavorable party to request for a support. This study believes the court should be denied the request if the judgment has been made and the unfavorable party has requested for court enforcement before appealing. Once this case appealed, the quashed arbitration decision will be reinstated due to uncertain effectiveness of litigation. As long as the appeal is legitimate, the effect of arbitration decision will be reinstated. Therefore, it is believed that the unfavorable party can take the reinstated arbitration decision to once again request for a compulsory enforcement.