透過您的圖書館登入
IP:44.222.249.19
  • 學位論文

民事訴訟法上共同訴訟人間之合一確定

The Consistent Adjudication on Joinder of Parties in Civil Procedure Law

指導教授 : 沈冠伶

摘要


我國、德國及日本之民事訴訟法,依據共同訴訟人間就訴訟標的有無合一確定之必要,區別為普通共同訴訟與必要共同訴訟。前者於我國適用民事訴訟法第55條共同訴訟人獨立性原則、後者則以第56條共同訴訟人行為相互影響之原則處理。然而,有鑑於民事訴訟法第56條「訴訟標的對於共同訴訟之各人必須合一確定者」之規定語意不明,通說及實務於判斷具體個案是否屬於必要共同訴訟時,習慣套用德國法之見解,將應合一確定之共同訴訟,限縮於依法律規定有須共同進行訴訟之當事人適格要求或確定判決效力於共同訴訟人間擴張之情形,除此之外則一律適用共同訴訟人獨立原則。但向來之研究並未探討:將合一確定之要求限縮於法律上有合一確定必要者,其正當性基礎為何;反之,如未能做成合一確定之裁判,於程序法或實體法上將產生何種問題,以及於非法律上應合一確定之事件類型,如法院作成歧異裁判時,對當事人之程序利益或實體利益有何影響。準此,本論文以合一確定之意義與範圍為探討對象,透過對共同訴訟制度之法制史研究與德國法之比較,自必要共同訴訟為複數訴訟法律關係合併之本質,釐清合一確定所具備裁判內容上與時間上之雙重意義。並經由比較法上對於合一確定必要性之不同見解,確認必要共同訴訟之範圍即合一確定必要性理論屬法律政策之問題,更進一步論證於我國民事訴訟法以尊重程序主體權為主軸進行大幅修正後,應以共同訴訟人聽審請求權之維護,作為正當化於必要共同訴訟人間產生互相牽制、限制共同訴訟人獨立性之依據,並藉此拓展合一確定之範圍。 於向來所謂固有及類似必要共同訴訟,亦即訴訟標的有合一確定必要之情形,本論文認為,首先,合一確定之必要與當事人適格性之要求為二層次問題,於我國法上可透過以法院職權通知及相關配套制度賦予法律上利害關係人聽審請求權,取代當事人適格性認定之機能,藉此緩和固有必要共同訴訟於起訴時之限制,並兼顧訴訟法上紛爭一次解決之要求。類似必要共同訴訟之範圍亦應擴大至當事人間僅有單一法律關係存在之情形,以避免歧異之裁判破壞法和平性,並實質上侵害共同訴訟人之聽審請求權。再者,除訴訟標的有合一確定之必要外,向來認為屬於普通共同訴訟之事件,於訴訟上呈現將影響共同訴訟人間共同法律基礎存否判斷之共通爭點時,亦有針對共通爭點為合一確定裁判之必要,而應視具體事件中共同訴訟人之訴訟行為及程序進展,交錯運用民事訴訟法第55條及第56條之規定。一方面使類似必要共同訴訟合一確定之範圍可擴大至訴訟標的經判斷所生既判力擴張之事件類型以外,另一方面則承認普通共同訴訟之程序上呈現應合一確定之共通爭點時,共同訴訟人獨立原則應於保護共同訴訟人聽審請求權之前提下向合一確定退讓,而使得普通共同訴訟之審判往類似必要共同訴訟之方向流動。 此種將合一確定必要性擴大至共通爭點之見解,亦應適用於解釋民訴法上關於當事人追加及第三人反訴之要件。民訴法第255條第1項第5款及第259條之合一確定係用作為判斷第三人是否得成為本訴訟當事人之標準,不應固守向來僅允許固有必要共同訴訟人追加或成為反訴被告之見解,而應自紛爭統一解決之觀點,擴張及於第三人嗣後成為共同訴訟人時,彼此間具有共通爭點之情形;但嗣後之共同訴訟人間行為效力及訴訟進行,仍須依民訴法第55條或第56條處理。相較於此,民訴法第62條有關參加人是否為獨立參加之地位,則應判斷該參加人是否有受較高程度聽審請求權保障之必要,在參加人與被參加人間具有共通爭點時,亦應符合該條所謂合一確定之必要性。

並列摘要


According to Code of Civil Procedure in Taiwan, German and Japan, joinder of parties is divided into two categories, normal and necessary, based on whether a claim must be adjudicated jointly with regard to all co-parties. In normal joinder of parties, the principle of independence is mainly applied, which prevents each party from being subject to the other’s behaviors (Article 55); on the contrary, the acts or proceeding regarding to all co-parties must be restricted between each other and the court decision has to be uniform for all co-parties (Article 56). Nevertheless, resulting from the vague wording of Article 56, the category of necessary joinder of parties is confined to two types, whenever several persons are compulsory to join as indispensable plaintiffs or defendants to initiate the action in accordance with the statutes or the effect of a final and binding judgement shall be extended to all co-parties, even if the actions are initiated separately. However, under the category of necessary joinder of parties, how to justify these confinements and what will happen if inconsistent adjudications are made still remain unclear. Therefore, this thesis focuses on the meaning and scope of the consistent adjudication written in Article 56. Through the study of legal history and comparison with German law, the thesis clarifies the essence of joinder of parties with multiple legal relationships involved and the double meaning of consistency regarding to the consistent adjudication. Furthermore, since how to define the necessity of the consistent adjudication is an issue of legal policy, the protection of “the right to be heard” should be one of the main criteria in order to explain the restriction to the independence of co-parties and to expend the range of necessity to the consistent adjudication. In conclusion, this thesis advocates, that the indispensability to be co-parties regarding the first type of necessary joinder of parties can be replaced with the protection of the right to be heard of the one, who have not been joined the litigation as a plaintiff or defendant. This opinion resorts to the new-added Notification of Action by the Court (Article 67-1), aiming for preventing the third-party from being deprived of the right to be heard, which corresponds to the capability of standing of parties and can also solve the whole relevant legal dispute in one proceeding. Moreover, the scope of the second type of necessary joinder of parties should be extended to the situation that the object of a litigation comprises only one legal relationship which cannot be determined separately. Besides, under the category of normal joinder of parties, if a common issue exists between co-parties, the court should take the acts of parties and phases of proceeding in to consideration and properly decide to apply Article 55 or Article 56 in pursuance of stretching the necessity of the consistent adjudication. Lastly, the opinion to expand the necessity of the consistent adjudication should also be applied to the interpretation of the condition to add a third-party into a litigation (Article 255 Paragraph 5), to raise a counterclaim against a third-party (Article 259) or to provide a interventor with a higher competence for the better protection of his or her right to be heard (Article 62).

參考文獻


22.林誠二(2016),〈準公同共有債權之行使──最高法院104年度台上字第2184號民事判決評釋〉,《月旦裁判時報》45期,頁9-16。
8.沈冠伶(2014),〈爭點效之主觀範圍與第三人之程序參與──最高法院101年度台上字第994號判決及最高法院99年度台上字第1701號判決之評釋〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,239期,頁75-94。
47.劉明生(2011),〈當事人變更與追加──評最高法院九十九年度台抗字第393號裁定與臺灣高等法院九十九年度抗字第一三三二號裁定〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,191期,頁191-204。
1.李亦庭(2010),《反射效之研究—自訴訟法及實體法兼顧觀點》,臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文,臺北。
38.黃國昌(2009),〈論命拒絕共同起訴人强制追加為原告之程序機制:由實證觀點出發之考察與分析〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,38卷4期,頁67-131。

延伸閱讀