2015年民事程序法發展回顧：民事及家事裁判之新發展

在2015年最高法院所作成之民事裁判中，就行政審判權之公益性予以相對化，容許當事人逕行合意就特定事件選由普通法院審判；就公同共有債權人中一人或數人訴請債務人對全體公同共有人為給付時，要求受訴法院闡明起訴原告聲請命拒不同為原告之他公同共有人追加為原告；就祭祀公業所受敗訴確定判決，闡述受該判決效力所及之派下員，不得對之提起第三人撤銷訴訟，擴大當事人之審判法院選擇權，保障公同共有債權人之訴權，並排除無益之第三人撤銷訴訟提起。再者，於其家事裁判中，就民事訴訟事件與家事財產訴訟事件之合併，明示其要件為兩者之基礎事實相牽連，並經當事人合意或法院認有統合處理必要者；就依不當得利請求返還代墊扶養費事件，認其係家事非訟事件，得不經言詞辯論為審判；就認可收養事件，是否得由司法事務官辦理固有爭議，但於聲請後收養人死亡之情形，則視其有無續行必要而異其處理方式，程序並非當然終結，雖已擴大合併審判範圍，但未保障真正訟爭事件當事人之辯論權，且未審酌處理收養事件之司法事務官資格及其處理範圍。

關鍵字

程序選擇權；固有必要共同訴訟；第三人撤銷之訴；統合處理之要求；真正訟爭事件；死後收養

並列摘要

Among civil judgments made by Supreme Court in 2015, it makes public interest of administrative jurisdiction disposable, allowing parties to consent to choose civil court for judgment. When one or several creditor-in-common claim debtor to perform the obligation for all creditor-in-common, it is necessary that court elucidates the plaintiff to have the other creditor-in-common refusing to join as co-plaintiff added as co-plaintiff. When the final judgment is decided against Ancestor Worship Guild, successors who are bound by the judgment can't initiate third-party opposition action. These broaden parties' right to choose jurisdictional court, strengthen creditor-in-common's right of relief and exclude unnecessary third-party opposition action. In addidtion, among family courts' judgments, when there is a consolidation of a civil litigation and a family property litigation, it is required that these two litigation should be connected due to factual relevance, with the consent of both parties, or the court consider it necessary. The claim of restitution of maintenance of the minor child based on unjust enrichment is catagorized as family non-litigation matter, which can be adjudicated without oral argument. It still remains controversial whether judicial associate officer can deal with the matter concerning approval of an adoption; however, when adopter died after the petition, the proceeding would be treated differently, not certainly terminated, relying on the necessity of continuing the process. These has broaden the scope of consolidation, but they neither protects adversary right of parties in essentially contentious matters nor takes both the qualification and the scope of judicial associate officer dealing with matters concerning adoption into serious consideration.