民事判決既判力正當性的再考察 -兼論共識尋求之訴訟觀-

A Review on the Legitimacy of Binding Effect of Civil Adjudication -Meanwhile to Consensus-oriented Conception of Civil Procedure-

陳瑋佑(Wei-Yu Chen)

指導教授 ： 沈冠伶

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.00970

摘要

藉由對訴訟制度為內部與外部的分析，判決及其拘束力係實體法與程序法交織的產物，而訴訟整體運作又包含在政治、社會脈絡之中，既判力的強制效力必須在巨觀層次與微觀層次探求其正當性。依此，本文分為三大部分：第一部分係確認既判力的公權性格，依此說明其正當化需求，透過法律文化水平及垂直作用的分析，在台灣法的背景上，否定所謂必要性論理及揭示民主正當性議題，申言之，因為傳統中國法雖沒有判決確定力的概念卻仍能運行不墜，說明既判力並非達成法安定性的唯一方式，又由於西方民主憲政制度的接納，對於公權力的實施要求符合自我治理的基礎，判決在形式上係由法官單方面對當事人宣示行動規範的狀況，令人產生民主正當性的質疑。第二部分則探討向來學說如何回應此項質疑，並檢討、批判此等見解，換言之，傳遞理論試圖藉由判決合於人民自主立法的內容以取得正當性，然而，法律的具體適用並非機械式、邏輯式之過程，而係包含評價要素於其中，特別在近來法官常為形成政策、展望將來之裁判的趨勢下，法官實居於立法者的地位，難謂能藉著正確的法律適用傳遞立法的自主性；類似理論強調程序本身的正當化機能，認為透過對當事人參與程序的保障以及現實參與與立法過程的類同性已能使當事人享有充分的自由，但是，程序正義終究不能完全取代實質正義在整體正義中的地位，其不能不指向一定的實質意涵，正是作為裁斷者的法官之存在，使訴訟無法盡合於立法且留下了程序與內容連結上的正當性空缺，因此，仍不得謂係屬成功；權力分立理論主張司法權的行使只有在配合拘束力的前提下能實現監督、制衡立法、行政權的功能，甚且，既判力制度乃至於法律解釋、法之續造等空間係出於立法者事先的授權即其自主的決定，不過，如果判決亦摻雜政治性考量，只能說已超出權力分立設計的原初效度，再者，就自我治理的真正體現而言，相較於抽象的事前授權，毋寧是具體的事後決策更合致於民主原則，甚至只有此種直接地自主協調方能免於他律的疑慮，至此，本文論證上開理論皆不能提供一個圓滿的解答。在第三部分，本文引介規範命題的對話合理性基準以及權力行使的審議式民主正當性，前者指稱判決的正確性係受評鑑於當事人互為主體地溝通、討論所得之共識，正當性亦涵蓋了程序之正統性，後者則針對國家權力，主張經過理想審議程序後的強制決策始有正當性，將此二對象有異但取徑相同的看法統合到訴訟上，本文新倡以共識尋求的訴訟觀重構訴訟程序，尤其是經由法官闡明義務的履行，在外部框架上促使當事人立於平等、自由的地位，在內部規則上則導引兩造以提出論據的方式相互論辯，並依照此程序所得到的共識構成判決之內容，如此，當事人就特定法律爭議自主地形成解決方案，一方面積極地實踐自我治理的原則，另方面消極地充足自己責任的要件，既判力的拘束於焉取得民主正當性基礎。

關鍵字

既判力的民主正當性 ； 作為（準）立法者的法官 ； 程序正義 ； 對話的合理性基準 ； 審議式民主 ； 共識尋求的訴訟觀 ； 闡明義務

並列摘要

Through the analysis of the internal and external system of litigation institution the judgment with its binding effect shows as a product of material law and procedural law, moreover, the operation of litigation is also embedded in contemporary political and social context. Therefore, in order to find out the legitimacy of the compulsory effect of res judicata it demands reviews in macro along with micro level. Hence this thesis could be distinguished mainly into three parts: the first part is to define the authoritative and official nature of res judicata, from which the need to legitimize arises. By way of analysing the horizontal and vertical exchanges of legal cultures this thesis denies the so-called “necessary theory” and further declares the issue of democratic legitimacy. That is, referred to ancient chinese legal system it’s not the only method to keep determinacy of law via res judicata; besides, since both formal and substantial democratic constitution has been merged into taiwanese legal structure, people ask the performance of official power to be based on the principle of “self-government.” While a judgment appears to be rendered one-sidedly by judge and tells the parties action regulations, one queries its democratic legitimacy at once. Secondly this thesis investigates the theories which try to answer that question and then criticizes those responses. In other words, the “derivative theory” announces that if the law was applied correctly, the original democratic legitimacy of legislature which came from the self-determination of citizen would fluently pass to the judgment. But, applying laws to concrete cases is not simply a logical or mechanical process, rather, it composes of factors of evaluations. Especially under the trend of allowing judges to give future-oriented or policy-making verdicts, these deciders stand actually in the position of legislator, so that it’s hardly to recognize the success of derivation. “Analogical theory” emphasizes the legitimating function of procedure, and they assert that the parties could enjoy full freedom if the participation in lawsuit, which is analogical to legislative process, was perfectly protected. However, according to a wider concept of justice procedural justice can not totally take the place of substantial justice. It must point at substantial content to some extend. Just because the judge plays a deciding role, the procedure of litigation and legislation can’t be seen as the same. This theory is thus not satisfying, too. As to the “separation of power theory”, it’s said that without binding effect the judicial power couldn’t fulfill its function, namely check-and-balance, against legislative and executive power. Furthermore, the discretion power of judge while applying laws in accordance with this theory results from warranty or admission of legislators, that is, citizen. Yet when judgments tinge political considerations, the operation of judicial power goes beyond the validity of the primitive design, and the most important thing is that compared to authorizing in advance it better suits the democratic principle as parties can control their own case concretely. One could even advocate that only in the latter situation we are free from the threat of heteronomy. This thesis therefore concludes that these three theories don’t offer a complete resolution to the mentioned problem. In the third part this thesis introduces the “discursive reasonableness of regulative statement theory” and the appeal of “deliberative democracy,” which separately illustrates that the rightness of adjudication can merely be judged by consensus which stems from the communication or discussion between inter-subjective parties, and argues that ideal deliberative procedure should finally provide compulsory official decisions with legitimacy. Although each of them aims at different object, they share the same fundamental thought. Inspired by these ideas, this thesis newly recommends “consensus-oriented conception of civil procedure”, which should be taken as a guide to reconstruct the existing litigation institute. Among all of the possible reforms, the clarifying duty of judge and its execution act as key character. For outer frame of litigation it builds a free and equal environment, while for internal rule of litigation it promotes discussions with argumentations, and the achieved consensus would directly constitute the content of adjudication. In this way, parties could autonomously form their resolution for the given legal dispute, and that means that the principle of self-government and the basis of self-responsibility are simultaneously accomplished. Then the binding effect of res judicata acquires its democratic legitimacy.

並列關鍵字

democratic legitimacy of res judicata ； judge as (quasi-)legislator ； procedural justice ； discursive reasonableness of regulative statement ； deliberative democracy ； consensus-oriented conception of civil procedure ； clarifying duty

參考文獻

王泰升（1999），《台灣日治時期的法律改革》，台北：聯經。

姜世明（2006），《民事訴訟法基礎論》，台北：元照。

王泰升（2008），〈學說與政策交織下的日治台灣民事法制變遷：以岡松文書為中心〉，《台大法學論叢》，第37卷第3期。

顏厥安（2005），〈溝通、制度與民主文化-由哈伯瑪斯的法理論初探社會立憲主義〉，《幕垂鴞翔》，台北：元照。

周婉窈（1989），《日據時代的臺灣議會設置請願運動》，台北：自立報系。