2020年民事訴訟法裁判回顧：民事判決效力之主觀範圍

於民事程序法之領域中，有關判決效力之主觀範圍應如何予以劃定，實務上雖已一定程度形成穩定之運作方針，惟其未必合於相關規範之旨趣，而非無反省之必要；此觀最高法院就相同事件類型不乏歧異裁判一事益明。為此，以2020年最高法院關於判決效力之主觀範圍亦數次表示意見為契機，本文乃針對民事訴訟法第401條所定判決「效力」中之「既判力」及有類似作用之「爭點效」，回顧最高法院歷年裁判先例，而一面確認實務上如何理解應受民事確定判決既判力主觀範圍所及之「當事人」、一般及特定「繼受人」、「請求標的物占有人」或法定及任意訴訟擔當之「被擔當人」，一面釐清實務上是否亦擴張民事確定判決爭點效及於當事人以外之第三人，並提示若干學說上之贊同或質疑見解，以作為後續研究之基礎。

關鍵字

既判力；爭點效；程序保障；相對性原則；系爭物；訴訟擔當

並列摘要

In the field of civil procedural law, the issue of how to determine the subjective scope of effects of final judgments is of essential importance. In this regard, the approaches adopted in the judiciary are to be reviewed, particularly in light of the telos of the relevant provisions. This is urgent because inconsistency of the Supreme Court rulings, including those made in 2020, on same types of cases can be observed. As consequence thereof, this review article aims in the first place to provide an overview of the case law, which could serve as foundation for further discussion; some observations or criticism in the literature would also be noted. Given the limited space, it will only address two kinds of effects of judgments, that is the res judicata and the so-called issue estoppel: for the former effect, the focus will be on the interpretation of the concepts of the ＂parties＂, ＂successor of a party＂, ＂possessor of the claimed object＂, and the ＂person on behalf of whom the plaintiff or the defendant litigates＂ under Art. 401 of Code of Civil Procedure, while for the latter effect, attention will be given to whether and to what extent the courts expand this effect of judgment to the third parties.

並列關鍵字

res judicata ； issue estoppel ； procedural protection ； principle of relativity ； object in dispute ； litigation in one's own name on another's behalf