事實及理由的論述與民事訴訟判決結果關聯性研究─以情事變更原則為中心

近年來，國內營建工程爭議的解決途徑偏向於民事訴訟，但承辦訴訟的法官並未擁有工程的專業背景，對於雙方在「事實及理由」中的陳述是否能完全了解，本文主要是以具備工程專業背景以及所習得些微的法律知識與客觀第三者立場，對以情事變更原則所提起之工程訴訟案件進行分析，就訴訟雙方在「事實及理由」中對於情事變更原則要件的陳述，是否會影響裁判結果。承辦訴訟案件的法官所具備之專業為法律非營建工程，當事人要說服法官，其提起之工程爭議有情事變更原則之適用，須對情事變更原則五項要件陳述充足，對於法院的裁判結果也會相對的有利於陳述充足之一方。本文將構成情事變更原則的五項要件區分為二，其中，須有情事變更之實及情事變更須發生於法律關係成立後，法律效果消滅前，這二項要件，是以情事變更原則提起訴訟案件是否成立的最低門檻，所以不進行量化。在「事實及理由」中，非當事人所得預料且有不得預料性、因不可歸責於當事人之事由而發生及情事變更後如仍貫徹原有之法律效力則顯失公平，這三項要件應為當事人攻防之重點。本文對雙方攻防之重點三要件進行量化，首先對三要件重要性給予權重分數，再依當事人在「事實及理由」中對情事變更原則要件論述的詳細程度給予分數。為避免影響案例分析之結果將非工程爭議案件與「事實及理由」中採取消極態度論述案件刪除。從案例分析中，所得分數高低是依照當事人對「事實及理由」中的陳述內容是否詳細完整而來，從案例當事人對「事實及理由」論述的得分高低與法院判決結果相互對照，可發現案例中得分越高者往往都是贏得判決那一方，當事人所得論述內容的分數越高，贏得勝訴的機率也愈高。而案例分析結果也顯示出，依情事變更原則提起之訴訟案件，若當事人在「事實及理由」中的情事變更的三項要件有越詳細的論述，得到分數越高，贏得訴訟機率也越高。從本文對案例分析結果與法院判決相互比較，可得知「事實及理由」的論述與是否贏得訴訟的相關率高達91%，可以確定，「事實及理由」的論述詳盡與否和取得有利的民事訴訟的判決機率有著相當高的關聯性，本文認為若往後有工程有情事變更原則之爭議，於「事實及理由」中對情事變更原則的三要件做詳細的敘述，贏得有利判決的機率將近9成之多。

關鍵字

事實與理由；情事變更原則；民事訴訟；工程爭議

並列摘要

In recent years, the way of resolving disputes in domestic construction engineering has been towards civil litigations. However, the litigation judges do not have the professional background, and whether they can fully understand the “facts and reasons” in statements from both parties. This paper is mainly to conduct analysis of construction lawsuits arisen from the principles of changed circumstances based on the professional construction background with a slight legal knowledge and from a third party’s objective point of view to study if the statements of “facts and reasons” from both parties will affect judge’s ruling subject to the principles of changed circumstances. Litigation judges have their professional background in laws but not in construction engineering; therefore, the litigant parties have to convince the judge. There are applicable principles of changed circumstances from construction disputes. It is necessary to give an adequate statement of five elements of principles for changed circumstances, which will be advantageous to the party who provides a sufficient statement relevant to court’s judgment. This paper divides the five elements of principles in constituting changed circumstances into two. Among which, first of all, there is a fact of changed circumstances; and secondly, the changed circumstances take place after the establishment of the legal relationship and before the eradication of legal effects. These two elements are the minimum threshold whether the case is established based on the principles of changed circumstances; therefore, we did not conduct quantification. Regarding “facts and reasons,” it is unconscionable such as it is not expected from the parties and it is non-predictability, occurrences that are not attributable to the parties, and even after the changed circumstances, the effectualness is still in the process of implementation. These three elements should be the main focuses of offense and defense for the parties. This paper conducts quantification on these three elements of offense and defense for both parties. Firstly, we gave weight scores to these three elements in accordance to their importance. And then we gave scores based on the detailedness in statements of “facts and reasons” towards the principles of changed circumstances from the parties. To avoid the impact on the results of case analysis, we deleted those cases that are not related to the construction disputes and those cases that adopted pessimistic attitudes with “facts and reasons.” From the analysis of example cases, the high and low of scores are obtained according to the detailedness and the completeness in the statements of “facts and reasons” from the parties. The scores of statements of “facts and reasons” are cross-referenced to the court’s ruling. We found that the party who won the case usually has the higher scores. The party who has the higher scores in the statement also has the bigger chance to win the case. The results of case analysis showed that in the litigation cases arisen from the principles of changed circumstances, if the party gives more detailed statement in the three elements of “facts and reasons” for changed circumstances, the party gets higher scores and the chance to win the case is also higher. The comparison of case analytical results to the court’s judgments, we learned that the interrelations ratio between statements of “facts and reasons” as well as litigation winning is high up to 91%. It can be determined that there is a very high correlation between a detailed statement of “facts and reasons” and the probability of obtaining a favorable judgment of civil litigation. This paper believes that in the future if there are disputes in principles of changed construction circumstances, having a detailed statement in the three elements of “facts and reasons” subject to the principles of changed circumstances, the probability of winning a favorable judgment is near more than 90%.