訴訟中專業參與之研究-以營建工程訴訟實務為中心

A Study on the Expert Participation in Trial Proceedings -Based on Construction Engineering

潘柏呈(PO-CHEG PAN)

指導教授 ： 伍勝民

朝陽科技大學/理工學院/營建工程系/碩士(2013年)

摘要

土木營建工程爭議中，除了涵蓋繁雜的法律規定，還具有高度專業性的技術知識，而在訴訟程序中，由於我國採取職業法官制度，審判者的育成，通常只經過單純法律訓練與教育而成，並不具備法律以外專業能力；而目前在訴訟過程如遇法律外之專業領域，舉凡如營建、醫療、或是智慧財產等專業領域爭議，通常藉由具備該爭議專業能力之第三公正機關(人)，透過鑑定來輔助爭議審理還原案件真實及剖析爭議內容，再透過法官的自由心證來終結案情。但縱使有鑑定報告輔助，該報告內容亦是屬於專業技術的範疇，只具備法律專業的司法審理者，如何能理解其高度專業性內容，對於在如此基礎下衍伸而出的審判結果，實有令人質疑的地方。
本文透過蒐集土木建築爭議實務案例，經過量化統計，了解目前於訴訟中，法官依賴鑑定報告作為審判結論的程度，訴訟之鑑定與專家意見之定位屬於證據，實務上通常以「鑑定搭配傳喚鑑定人(證人)」之模式加以運用，法官根據自由心證來判斷其證明力，而雖然具備如此機制，實務案例中也明顯表現出，非該專業領域之法官取決鑑定結論與專業意見時，常只源於尊重該專業之判斷而為，對於鑑定與專家證詞的採納並沒有一定標準，法官縱然得根據自由心證評價證據，然而由於鑑定與專家意見係專家運用科技專業所得之結果，與一般之證據並不相同，在決定證據採信與否時應考量到形成鑑定與專家意見之每個環節，皆影響其結論之公信力。從而影響其後出現當事人質疑，法官只具備法律專業而來決斷是否採信該科學性證據時是否妥當的問題出現。透過量化結論得知法官既然過度仰賴鑑定報告的內容，欲使用鑑定報告輔助審案，法官既無法擔任剖析專業爭議之角色，即表示司法程序中出現瑕疵，面臨法官只具備法律專業無其他領域專業知識之窘境。
藉由過去文獻的回顧，我國司法院也曾效法他國制度，研擬讓專業進入訴訟過程，推出多種方式，但無不是經歷一定挫折與實際運用之問題而延宕，或是因為宣傳不周的問題使整體使用成效不理想，本文透過整理他國輔助法官審理專業爭議之制度運用，探討其優缺點及適用性是否符合我國風俗民情使為借鏡，當然，如要改善我國司法現有制度，實行所謂專業參與或是專業法官制度等其他方式，讓專業進入訴訟確實窒礙難行，不管是國家風俗民情的因素、國民對新制度的認知、舊體制人才重新適應新制度的過程，或專業人士需要修補法律相關知識，抑或法官要學習法律外的專業能力，都是需要時間培養，相關專業人才使用斷層期還是需要仰賴鑑定報告使用，縱使新制度產生與應用時，鑑定報告使用亦然不可間斷。故鑑定制度重要性無庸置疑，鑑定人或專家實為輔助法官認定真實問題的角色，無法代替法官之地位，前者提供專業意見之判斷，後者就其意見審理案件，兩者缺一不可，皆無法憑一己之見裁判結果，我國法官在法律外專業知識領域缺乏經驗與教育，如何培育具完整專業教育背景的法官或讓法官具備相關專業知識，抑或是讓具有專業知識人才參與訴訟過程中，讓專業幫助案件的處理，使其能快速且公正的解決營造工程業所遇到之專業爭議。

關鍵字

鑑定 ； 工程訴訟 ； 專業參與

並列摘要

There are complicated legal provisions and specialized technical knowledge in the dispute in civil engineering althongh. In Taiwan, professional judge system is adopted, judges are only trained and educated by law so they don''t have professional competence beyond it. In litigation, if other specialized fields such as construction, medical and intellectual property disputes is contained, a third party with the professional competence needed is supposed to assist the judge by identifying the truth of the case and analyze the dispute. In the end, the case will be closed through the self-justification of the judge. Even with the help of an appraisal report, it is still a report about a specialized field. How can a judge who is only proficient in law understand the specialized content? And, the outcome derivative under such basis is questionable.
By the collection of practical civil dispute cases and analysis of quantitative statistics, this study tries to understand the extent judges relies on the appraisal report to make judgment. The appraisal of litigation and the opinions of specialist are evidences, they are usually used under the mode of "identify and summon the witness to court" and the judge will determine the degree of certification through self-justification. Though such mechanism is provided, we can see in practical cases that when a judge lacks knowledge of a specialized field adopt the appraisal report and opinions of specialist, usually it only out of respect of the specialized field but have a specified standard for it. Even judges have to evaluate evidence based on self-justification, appraisal and the opinions of specialist are results of technical specialty that are different from regular evidence. When considering whether to use the evidence or not, we should notice that every part of appraisal and opinions of specialist will affect the outcome of credibility. Then, the litigant will have queries. A judge who is only proficient in law will cause problem when considering whether to adopt the scientific evidence. Through the conclusion of quantitative statistics, we can find out that judges rely on the appraisal report too much as an auxiliary. If judges can''t analyze professional controversies, it means there are defects in judicial proceedings. There is a plight of judges only have legal profession but little nothing of other professional fields.
By the review of previous studies, we can find out that our judicial system had followed other countries to put profession into the litigation process. A variety of methods were offered, but they all faced obstacles and procrastinated because of the problems derived from practical application. In addition, lack by of publicity made the outcome not satisfactory. By collecting the professional auxiliary system of other countries, thin study probe into the advantages and disadvantages of it and its suitability for our country. If we want to improve the existing system of justice and put the so-called professional involvement/professional judge system or other methods into practice, it''s almost impossible. It takes time to change the following situations: national customs of the people, citizens'' awareness of the new system, the process of old system personnel to re-adapt to the new system, gaining legal knowledge for the professionals and learning professional skills for a judge. Even if the new system come into existence and put into practice, the usage of appraisal report should still remain. As a result, the importance of identification system is undoubted. Identifier or experts can only assist the judge to identify the real problem, they can''t replace the judge''s position. The former provides professional advice and the latter hear the cases by the advices, both are indispensable and can''t verdict by themselves. The judges in our country lack experience and education of other professional fields. How to nurture a judge of complete professional education background or let the judge gain relevant expertise and how to let professional be involved in the litigation so they can help handling the case and deal with the problem fast and fair are two problems we are having when dealing with professional controversy in construction engineering industry.

並列關鍵字

Engineering Litiga ； appraisal ； Expert Participation in Trial

參考文獻

7. 蔡志芳，「論我國採行參審制度之必要性與可行性」，律師通訊，

4. 林永謀，「德國陪審、參審採行之理念上觀察」，法令月刊，第46卷，第1期，台北，1995年1月。

1. 謝凱傑，我國採行人民參與審判制度之探討─以國民參審試行條例草案為中心，國立成功大學法律學系研究所碩士論文，2008 年。

2. 王梅英，「專家在法庭上的角色－鑑定或參審」，律師雜誌，第253期，台北，2000年。

168 第161期，台北，1993年2月。