我國民事訴訟集中審理制度審判效能之研究 －以臺灣高等法院訴訟轄區為例

Study on the Performance of Continuous Trial in Civil Cases - the Example of Taiwan High Court

魏麗娟(Li-Chuan Wei)

指導教授 ： 陳家聲

國立臺灣大學/管理學院/高階公共管理組/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2006.02183

摘要

面對多元、複雜、變遷快速、專業分工日趨細微的社會，法院案件日益增多且繁複，而涉及專業之案件亦逐漸增多，司法資源有限，案件無窮增多之情況下，如何消極面紓減訟源，積極面清理積案，保障全民訴訟權利之公平，對於毎一案件均能速審速結，每一案件審理結果不僅符合公平、正義、且能滿足社會大眾對個案專業度之要求，而獲得當事人或社會大眾之信服，則為當前應積極面對解決之迫切問題。
為達上述目標，如僅依傳統方式，對外消極的宣導當事人法律常識並呼籲勿濫用法律、對內積極督促法官清理積案，速審速結，尚無法滿足設定法律，為民解決紛爭、追求公平正義之本旨，因此案件流程再造，案件管理策略之角色乃益趨重要，而成為司法改革重要課題之一。面對全民的期盼及司法改革的世界潮流。我國亦於民國88年7月6至8日召開「全國司法改革會議」，確立改革綱領，民國89年2月9日更大幅度修正民事訴訟法。本次民事訴訟程序最大的變革在於實施「集中審理」制度，其目標如下：一、便利當事人使用訴訟制度。二、預防紛爭的發生或擴大。三、擴大訴訟制度解決紛爭的功能。四、促使訴訟妥適進行。五、疏減訟源。
　 民事訴訟新制實施迄今已屆六年，司法改革關於集中審理制度之推動策略運用與成效、法官對於各項措施的看法與實施成效及審判實務落實程度等核心問題，自有加以探討的必要。本研究因而擷取司法院民國92年1月至95年4月之統計資料加以分析，以了解集中審理制度之現況及成效。另對臺灣高等法院轄區一、二審法院民事庭法官實施問卷調查，針對下列11點即：一、對案件結案日數之影響。二、對法官工作負荷量之影響。三、對案件折服率之影響。四、對案件維持率之影響。五、對案件和解率之影響。六、對第一審裁判品質之影響。七、對第二審裁判品質之影響。八、當事人對案件整體滿意度之影響。九、對當事人支出之訴訟勞費之影響。十、對司法公信力之影響。十一、 對司法整體成效之影響，以統計方法加以分析，求得集中審理制度落實程度與審判效能間有何關聯性，以期對於：一、民事訴訟制度改革之實施策略。二、集中審理制度配套措施之成效。三、集中審理制度落實之程度。四、集中審理制度整體成效等方面，求得結論及建議，希能藉此實證分析對於民事訴訟集中審理制度之推動有所助益。
本研究擷取司法院統計資料加以分析，獲得以下結論：
一、集中審理實施現況如下：
(一) 地方法院施行集中審理事件之比率，顯然偏低，平均僅有26.53%。
(二) 高等法院施行集中審理情形甚為普及，平均高達73.98％的民事事件採行集中審理制度。
二、成效分析如下：
(一) 對結案速度之影響：法院因施行集中審理制度反而造成案件延宕，尤其在兩
造均未委任律師代理訴訟之情形，其結案速度更慢，影響更鉅。僅有在第一
審行集中審理時，對於第二審結案速度有助益。
(二) 對折服率之影響：法院因施行集中審理制度反而使當事人對案件之折服率降低，尤其在有律師代理情形，影響更大，案件折服率更低。
(三) 對維持率之影響：法院因施行集中審理制度顯可提升案件維持率，尤其在一
審行集中審理之案件，更可提高案件維持率。
(四) 對疏減訟源之影響：行集中審理對於案件達成和解、調解、撤回之比率反而
降低，僅就此部分而言，並無法疏減訟源，減低法官之負荷。
(五)對裁判品質之影響：法院因施行集中審理制度，可大幅提高案件之正確性，對裁判品質之提升有正面影響。
(六)對訴訟確定日數之影響：法院因施行集中審理制度，反而造成案件延宕，訴訟確定日數拉長，僅在第一審行集中審理時，對於上訴案件確定日數，確有顯著助益，尤其在最高法院確定之重大案件，第一審行集中審理確可大幅加速案件之確定(即結案日數短，維持率亦高)，成效較好。
三、本研究對法官實施問卷調查，獲得以下發現：
(一)各法院辦理講習或法官參與集中審理制度講習或座談會之情形未達理想，有待加強。
(二)司法行政部分應加強人力、物力配合。
(三) 集中審理配套措施中關於失權效果與限制續審制之規定落實程度甚低，影響審判效能。
(四) 就法官個別變項之差異部分，對於集中審理制度之落實與施行成效，並無顯著差異。
(五) 落實程度與集中審理之審判效能具有顯著相關性，因此必須加強集中審理制度施行之落實程度。
本研究對於我國目前施行集中審理制度之現況及缺失，建議如下：
一、法院行政配合部分：
1.增設法官助理或招考司法事務官等人力，專責協助兩造爭點整理，俾能貫徹集中審理制度精神，促進爭點整理進行之速度與專業度。
2.法院內部增設會議室，提供必要之設備，配合兩造爭點整理所需。
3.提供誘因、或增加獎勵、或多舉辦專業講習、座談會等，促使各地方法院法官願意積極落實施行新制度，提高各地方法院施行集中審理制度之落實程度。
4.法院統一建立並提供明確之集中審理訴訟流程、格式化之訴訟表格及注意事項，供當事人隨時查詢採用，使流程標準化，減少當事人因不了解或誤用所造成之訴訟延宕與虛耗。
二、加強落實限制續審制 (民訴第447條第1項)及失權效果 (民訴第196條第2項、第268條之2、第276條、第447條) 等規定之運用，促使當事人協力訴訟程序之進行，避免訴訟程序無謂之延宕。
三、律師制度之改善：
1.施行強制律師代理制度，或規定訴訟標的價額在一定金額以上或某種特殊類型的事件應委任律師強制代理，以落實集中審理制度，方能達到集中審理制度應有之成效。
2.改善律師養成教育及加強律師再教育，以免因律師素養訓練不足，未能與法官配合新制度之施行，反而造成集中審理施行之障礙。
四、配合強制律師代理制度之施行，並參考美國審前審理程序制度，將案件審理分為審前準備階段與開庭審理二階段，使爭點整理之責任盡量由當事人負責，避免如目前制度使法院過度介入兩造之爭點整理。並配合嚴苛之失權制度，使法院僅需就兩造已充分準備完成之所有訴訟細節進入實質審理，並可連續且集中在最短時間內審理終結，避免稀有之司法資源無謂浪費，使集中審理制度充分發揮審判效能。

關鍵字

集中審理 ； 審判程序 ； 民事訴訟程序 ； 司法改革 ； 審判效能 ； 案件管理 ； 證據開示 ； 審前審理 ； 法院組織 ； 訴訟制度 ； 爭點整理 ； 限制續審制 ； 失權效果

並列摘要

In a plural, complex, and rapidly evolving society with an intricate division of labor system, the courts face increasingly heavy caseloads that are not short of complex cases involving expertise in various areas. Under limited judicial resources and infinitely rising cases, there are some pressing issues that should be actively dealt with, for instance, how to cut down on lawsuits and alleviate docket congestion to uphold the rights of the people to sue, and how to speed up trial proceedings and ensure that the disposition of every case meets the public demands for judicial impartiality, justice and professionalism to win the confidence of the litigants or the public.
Conventional approaches to addressing the aforementioned issues, such as advocating the use of lawsuit as the last resort to settle a dispute and urging judges to speed up the adjudication process, hardly achieve the intent of laws to resolve disputes and uphold judicial impartiality and justice. Thus the roles of court process reengineering and case management strategy are gaining importance and becoming a vital issue in judicial reform. Amid people’s expectation and the world trends, Taiwan held a three-day national judicial reform meeting in July 1999, in which, the reform guidelines were established. The Code of Civil Procedure also underwent significant amendment in February 2000. The biggest change in that round of amendment was the adoption of “ concentrated proceeding” system. The objectives of the continuous trial system are: 1. to facilitate the use of litigation system by the public; 2. to prevent the occurrence or widening of dispute; 3. to expand the functions of litigation system in resolution of disputes; 4. to ensure proper litigation process; and 5. to cut down on lawsuits.
　 The new civil litigation system has been implemented for six years now. It is time to examine the core aspects of the concentrated proceeding system (CPS), including the strategies employed in promoting CPS and the effectiveness of CPS, the views of the judges on various measures taken, and the extent of CPS practice. This study collected the statistical data of the Judicial Yuan from January 2003 to April 2006 with the aim to analyze about the current status and the effectiveness of CPS. This study also carried out questionnaire survey of judges in civil divisions of the first instance in the District Courts and the second instance in the High Court. The survey posed the following questions: 1. the effect (of the implementation of CPS) on number of days to close a case; 2. the effect on cutting down on lawsuits; 3. the effect on appeal rate; 4. the effect on affirmative rate: 5. the effect on settlement rate; 6. the effect on the adjudication quality of the first instance; 7. the effect on the adjudication quality of the second instance; 8. the effect on litigants’ overall satisfaction with the court proceeding; 9. the effect on the litigation expenses incurred by litigants; 10. the effect on public confidence in the judicial system; and 11. the effect on overall performance of the courts. Data gathered from the questionnaire were subject to statistical analysis to observe the correlation between the extent of CPS practice and adjudication efficiency. It is hoped that this empirical analysis can make some conclusions and suggestions in the following aspects to help the promotion of CPS in civil cases: 1. the strategic approach to civil litigation system reform; 2. the effectiveness of support measures for CPS; 3. the extent of CPS practice; and 4. the overall effectiveness of CPS.
Based on the analysis of the statistical data of the Judicial Yuan, the study drew the following conclusions:
1. The current status of the concentrated proceeding process:
(1) The percentage of the concentrated proceeding cases in the district courts was apparently low, averaging merely 26.53%.
(2) The concentrated proceeding practice was prevalent in high courts with 73.98% of the cases averagely adopting the CPS.
2. The effectiveness of the concentrated proceeding:
(1) The effect on litigation time: The adoption of CPS generally resulted in prolonged litigation, especially in cases where neither litigant was represented by a counsel. The CPS helped only the speed of court proceeding in the second instance when it was adopted in the first instance.
(2) The effect on appeal rate: The adoption of CPS in fact increased the appeal rate, especially in cases where the litigants were represented by counsels.
(3) The effect on affirmative rate: The adoption of CPS increased the affirmative rate noticeably, especially in cases where CPS was adopted in the first instance.
(4) The effect of cutting down on lawsuits: The adoption of CPS lowered the rates of settlement, mediation and withdrawal, which did not cut down on lawsuits and help reduce judge’s caseload.
(5) The effect on adjudication quality: The adoption of CPS significantly enhanced the accuracy of ruling, thereby boosting the adjudication quality.
(6) The effect on the number of days of concluding a case: The adoption of CPS resulted in prolonged litigation, thereby protracting the time to conclude a case. The benefit of CPS in shortening the days of concluding a case was more noticeable only in appeal cases when it was adopted in the first instance, especially in cases affirmed by the Supreme Court (i.e. shorter days of closing a case and high affirmative rate).
3. Major findings from the questionnaire survey of judges:
(1) There is room for improvement with regard to court’s efforts in holding seminars or workshops on CPS and attendance of related seminars or discussion forums by the judges.
(2) The judicial administration should infuse more resources (e.g. manpower, funding, etc.) into the administrative support for CPS.
(3) The rules concerning some support measures for CPS, i.e. excludary effects as sanctions and qualified review de novo were not effectively enforced, which undermined the adjudication efficiency.
(4) No significant difference existed among judges with regard to the adoption of CPS and results of implementation.
(5) The extent of CPS practice and adjudication efficiency are significantly related. Thus efforts should be made to enhance the practice of CPS.
With regard to the current status and deficiencies in the implementation of CPS by the courts, this study suggests the following:
1. Administrative supports:
(1) Setting up the post of the judge assistant or the court administrator to assist in the formulation of the issues between the litigants to put into effect the spirit of CPS and speed up and enhance the professionalism of the issue formulation.
(2) Providing a conference room equipped with necessary setups inside the courthouse for issue formulation.
(3) Offering incentives, increasing the rewards, or holding more seminars or workshops to urge district court judges to adopt the CPS system.
(4) Establishing and providing clear concentrated proceeding, standard litigation forms, and instructions on CPS for public inquiry to reduce trial delay and waste caused by lack of understanding or misuse of the court proceedings on the part of litigants.
2. Enforcing the codes on restricted further proceedings (the first paragraph, of Article 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure) and loss of rights (the second paragraph of Article 196, 268-2, 276, and 447 of the Code of Civil Procedure) to make sure the litigants are keenly aware of the court procedure and avoid pointless delay.
3. Improvement of counsel system:
(1) Implementing mandatory counsel representation system or requiring counsel representation in cases involving certain amount of money or higher, or in some special types of cases to ensure the effective working of CPS.
(2) Improving lawyer’s education and stepping up their continuing education to make sure the CPS process is not impeded by the lack of adequate training on the part of counsels.
4. In conjunction with the adoption of mandatory counsel representation system and referring to the pre-trial system in the United States, a trial should be divided into pre-trial preparation stage and court hearing stage. Such division is designed to put more responsibility on litigants in issue formulation and reduce court involvement in this preparatory process. With the support of a rigorously enforced excludary effects as sanctions system, the court can proceed with actual hearing after the litigants have prepared all the details on the case and close the hearing in the shortest time through continuous trial. This can help avoid meaningless waste of rare judicial resources and let the designed functions of continuous trial system be brought into play.

並列關鍵字

concentrated proceeding ； trial proceeding ； civil procedure ； judicial reform ； adjudication efficiency ； case management ； discovery of evidence ； pre-trial ； court organization ； litigation system ； issue formulation ； qualified review de novo ； excludary effects as sanctions

參考文獻

38. 蔡兆誠，集中審理如何可能？ (上)（下） －美國民事訴訟法中 Pretrial 制度簡介，律師雜誌第 224 期、第225期，民國87年4月、5月。

40. 瞿海源、鄭宏文，司法信賴的調查分析，民間司法改革研討會，1999年。

10. 司法院，民事訴訟修正草案總說明，1999年4月。

25. 施啟揚，建立廉能公正的司法、實現公平正義的社會，法令月刊第49 卷第10 期，1998年10月。

36. 蔡崇義，司法改革九一新制推動成效分析－以臺灣高等法院臺南分院訴訟轄區為例，國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班93學年度碩士論文。