透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.173.214.79
  • 期刊

經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判及仲裁判斷是否有既判力?―最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號判決、97年度臺上字第2376號判決之分析

Do Mainland China's Final Civil Judgments or Arbitration Awards Recognized by Taiwan Courts Have any Res Juricata: The Analysis of Supreme Court Judgment No. 2531(2007) and No. 2376(2008)

摘要


經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判及仲裁判斷是否有既判力?若依最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號判決及97年度臺上字第2376號判決之見解,則為否定,其主要理由是法律並無規定,其見解與通說不同。本文認此為臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例立法者之遺漏,而屬法律漏洞,基於同一法律理由,應類推適用民事訴訟法第402條之規定及仲裁法第37條第1項規定,並不一律否定有既判力。又自既判力之本質而言,經大陸法院程序保障後作成之裁判,或經當事人合意選擇大陸仲裁機構所作成之仲裁判斷,應有既判力。而自兩岸司法互助之層面而言,如我方率先不承認經裁定認可確定之對岸民事確定裁判或仲裁判斷有既判力,對岸亦得採相應措施,則相互報復之結果,對兩岸人民權益影響不小,另自賽局理論而言,我方並無拒絕承認既判力以逼迫彼岸先承認我方確定民事裁判或仲裁判斷具有既判力之必要性,蓋因大陸法制及法院實務,早已承認經認可之我方民事確定裁判及仲裁判斷,具有既判力。最後,為杜絕此爭議,本文提出臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例之修正建議供參。

並列摘要


Does Mainland China's determined judgment or arbitration decision, which was recognized by Taiwan court, have any res juricata? Supreme Court judgment No.2531(2007)and No.2376(2008) said ”no” mainly because of the absence of explicit legislation. However, these two judgments are far from general opinions. It is a loophole for Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area. It is necessary to analogize Civil Procedure Code Article 402 and Arbitration Act Article 37 to affirm the res juricata. As for the nature of res juricata, there is res juricata where there is Due Process. From the viewpoint of judicial assistance, if we deny the res juricata of Mainland China's judgments and arbitration decisions, they may take reprisal measures arising great impact on people between two sides of Taiwan Strait. To solve the dispute, amendment suggestions to Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area are provided in this article.

被引用紀錄


鍾小喬(2016)。兩岸投資保障協議下的商務糾紛解決機制-以商務仲裁為核心〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2016.00772
陳俐宇(2015)。兩岸民事裁判相互認可與執行之探討〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2015.01023

延伸閱讀