2014年民事訴訟法裁判回顧：程序選擇權、非機構仲裁與國際審判管轄合意

程序選擇權法理起源於1990年代民事程序法學者之倡議，經最高法院於2004年援引為判決理由，並為大法官釋字第591解釋明認以來，已於實務上逐漸擴大其適用範圍，成為我國法解釋論之重要依據。2014年以程序選擇權作為論述基礎之裁判數更為歷年之冠，主要應用於涉及「非機構仲裁判斷之效力」、「國際審判管轄權合意之效力」及「訴之變更追加與合併態樣之闡明」等事件類型，展現我國實務對程序主體權保障日益重視之態度，值得肯定。本文意識到實務此一發展趨勢，擬以程序選擇權為主軸，探討最高法院於此三類事件之運用情形，尤其著重於：敘明依我國現行之民事程序法制應如何開展相關解釋論、評析實務之論理方式妥適與否及比較德國、美國等外國立法例，並配合訴訟標的理論之發展，以期使相關事件之將來發展能更指向於平衡當事人實體與程序利益。

關鍵字

程序選擇權論；程序利益保障論；非機構仲裁；國際審判管轄權合意；訴之合併；訴之變更追加；闡明義務

並列摘要

Founded by scholars of civil procedure law in 1990's, the theory of ＂Right to Procedure Options＂ (hereafter ＂the theory＂) has been used in Supreme Court judgments since 2004 and later formally recognized by Judicial Interpretation No. 591. So far, the theory has gradually expanded its influence in legal practice and become one of the most crucial guidances to interpret current legal system. The number of Supreme Court judgments in which the theory has been exercised reaches a new peak in the year 2014. These 6 judgments, concerning ＂the legal effect of ad hoc arbitral award＂, ＂the international forum-selection clauses＂ and ＂the court's elucidation toward amending/ raising of multiple claims, as well as forms of combination＂, express a notable attitude to valuing the protection of rights of procedural subjects. By analyzing these 6 judgments, this Article will discuss how to interpret the current civil procedure law according to the theory, how to improve the ground of judgments, together with the compare to foreign legal practice and legislations, aiming to balance the parties' both substantial and procedural interest.