家事事件之合併審判

The Consolidated Trial of Family Affairs

劉奐忱(Huan-Chen Liu)

指導教授 ： 許士宦

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201610106

摘要

向來之民事訴訟法及非訟事件法，為解決家事紛爭，分別設有民事訴訟程序、人事訴訟程序、調解程序及非訟程序等不同程序，就牽涉同一家庭之多數相關家事事件，委由不同法官遂行不同程序，使同一家庭成員分別取得裁判。此種多元程序併行之舊制，實不符程序利益保護、程序經濟維持及法的安定性等要求。為免致此， 2012年6月1日施行之家事事件法不僅將向來家事調解程序、人事訴訟程序、家事非訟程序及家事強制執行程序統整立法而使程序一元化，更將統合處理要求列為本法第1條之立法目的，並放寬合併請求家事事件之相關規定。準此，數家事事件乃至家事事件與民事事件間於何等情形、如何合併處理，以回應家事法統合處理之要求，重建家庭成員間和諧關係、保護未成年子女之最佳利益，及兼顧當事人或關係人之程序利益及實體利益，即屬重要之課題。惟該法施行後，就合併要件、適用法理、救濟程序及裁判效力等諸多問題，在解釋論甚至立法論上呈現爭議，亟待釐清立法旨趣及法理根據，資為準繩，因而構成本文。
本文共計七章，第一章為緒論，揭示研究目的並提出問題。第二章探究家事事件之合併、變更、追加及反請求，分析家事事件合併請求之要件與合併型態。其中第一部分為家事事件之合併，除釐清各事件類型合併請求之要件為何，確認家事事件法所允許合併請求家事事件之客體、主體範圍及合併型態，並肯認家事事件與民事事件請求基礎事實相牽連，並經當事人合意或法院認有統合處理必要時，得合併請求之。第二部分為家事事件之變更、追加或反請求，除肯認當事人於一審或二審依其事件類型得為家事事件之變更、追加或反請求，並進一步肯認當事人得於上開要件下，在家事訴訟或非訟程序中追加、反請求乃至變更民事事件。同時，亦對家事事件法就合併審判而加重闡明義務之程序保障，賦予其法理根據，並進一步為更完善之解釋論。
第三章為探討審理或裁判之合併與分離。其中第一部分闡述家事事件法於併採強制別請求禁止原則與裁量別請求禁止原則下，有關分別請求事件之同、異審級間之移送合併方式、移送裁定之救濟，乃至受移送法院之處理，符合統合處理要求所應有之解釋論。第二部分則著重於家事法第42條第1項但書所定合併請求之分別審理、裁判之解釋論與實務分析，指明實務運作應指向於程序延宕之避免，不宜僅因事件類型之不同，即分別審判之。
第四章說明合併審判數家事事件或合併審判家事事件與民事事件所應適用之程序法理。其中第一部分為合併審判須調整之程序法理，區分家事事件法明文與未明文規定者，分析合併審判後調整之裁判形式、捨棄、認諾與不公開主義、言詞審理等程序法理。合併審判不同種類事件時，基本之解釋方向，乃以家事訴訟程序之架構為主，以期程序外部之協調。原則上，合併審判數家事事件或家事與民事(訴訟、非訟)事件時，應採行判決形式、不公開主義與言詞審理主義。至就家事事件法第46條第1項但書第2款有關合併審判時，當事人捨棄、認諾效力限制之規定，則宜回應當事人程序處分權之尊重、統合處理等要求，為合目的性解釋。第二部分乃合併審判仍適用之原程序法理，區分為事證蒐集之相關原則與裁判效力兩部分，依序分析適時提出主義、職權探知主義與協同主義、嚴格證明與自由證明、證明度，以及形成力、執行力與既判力等各種裁判效力等程序法理，於合併審判適用不同程序法理之事件時如何調和適用。除了得依家事法第10條第2項但書各款、民訴法第278條2項、288條2項規定協調使裁判結果一致者外，均應適用各該事件類型所適用之程序法理而為審判。若因此造成合併裁判事件之事實認定或裁判結果不一致，則於判決理由中敘明原因即可。
第五章探討合併或分離裁判數家事事件或家事事件與民事事件之救濟。以救濟之客體為綱，圍繞於家事事件法第44條第1至4項規定，依序討論對訴訟與非訟事件之裁判、數訴訟事件之判決、數非訟事件之裁定，於各審級應如何分別或合併聲明不服。如有特別避免裁判結果歧異之需求，對原審合併或分別裁判各事件部分均聲明不服情形，應放寬其上訴要件、上訴理由、得否上訴三審之認定。至於僅就一部分事件之裁判聲明不服者，即應依各該事件類型回歸其應適用之不服程序，待審理後因附帶上訴或合併型態致上級審應審理不同類型事件時，再依程序轉換之法理解決，以兼顧當事人程序利益與實體利益、公益層面程序經濟等要求。至於家事事件法第44條第4項之規定，則於必要情形下，應類推適用於非訟事件為前提事件者。又參照日本法見解，於三審是否得放寬附帶上訴、擴張上訴之聲明，則可能因統合處理之必要，而為與民事訴訟法不同之解釋。
第六章說明家事調解程序與家事特別非訟程序之合併相關爭議。確認各該程序中得為請求之合併、變更、追加或反請求及其要件，與程序之裁量合併與分離原則。最後，於第七章總結前述各章所涉爭議之結論，勾勒家事事件法下家事事件合併審判制度所應有之解釋論，以妥適回應統合處理要求。然而，統合處理要求之內涵尚涉及「確定判決失權效制度」，與「擇定紛爭單位型程序標的為請求」等議題，而本文研究範圍僅及於家事事件於裁判確定前之合併審判相關問題。因此，有關合併裁判確定後應如何救濟，擇定紛爭單位型程序標的者應如何統合處理其紛爭，乃至合併請求與確定判決失權效制度之關係等，仍屬殘留課題而有待繼續研究。

關鍵字

統合處理 ； 家事事件 ； 民事事件 ； 合併審理 ； 合併裁判 ； 客體合併(客觀合併) ； 主體合併(主觀合併) ； 變更、追加或反請求 ； 別請求禁止 ； 分別審理 ； 分別裁判 ； 程序法理 ； 非訟化審理 ； 聲明不服 ； 擬制上訴 ； 家事調解 ； 家事特別非訟程序

並列摘要

The Family Proceedings Act which was implemented on June 1, 2012 merges meditation, suit, non-litigious and enforcement in single code. Moreover, to ensure multitude matters of the same family can be heard by the same judge in the same procedure to protect substantive and procedural interests, and to preserve the efficiency of the procedure and the stability, which is not satisfied by previous procedure law, the Family Proceedings Act not only classifies ‘Integration of procedure’ as legislative purpose, and also loosens restrictions of consolidation of family proceedings. However, after the implementation of the Act, there is a lot of disputation about the elements, legal theories, and the procedure of appeals of consolidation of family proceedings. Thus, it is important to figure out all of these problems,and that’s why this thesis comes into existence.
This thesis has five chapters. The first chapter is to clarify the motivation of the study and bring up questions. Chapter 2 analyzes the elements and the form of the consolidation of family proceedings. The first part of this chapter is ‘Consolidation of Family proceedings’, this part figures out the elements, the scope, as well as the form of joinder of claims and parties. It also admits the consolidated hearing and trial of family affairs and civil matters when the basic truths of these matters are Implicated, meanwhile agreed by both parties or shown the needs of Integration of procedure. The second part of Chapter 2 touches upon the amendment and raising of claims, as well as the counterclaim. This part clarify the elements of the amendment and raising of claims, as well as the counterclaim in the first and second instance. It also admit that if it meets the elements above-mentioned, the litigants may do the amendment and raising of claims, as well as raise the counterclaim of civil matters in family proceedings. Also, the Family Proceedings Act strengthens the court’s elucidative duty of amendment and raising of claims, as well as the counterclaim, and its reason would be clarified in this part.
Chapter 3 probes into the consolidation and separation of proceedings. The first part interpret the transfer of proceedings in cases of pendency of several family matters between the same or different instance, the procedure of its appeals, and the following procedure after the transfer of proceedings. The second part of this chapter focuses on the interpretation of the Act 42 I of the Family Proceedings Act, and the analysis of the appliance to this Act by trial practice. It points out that trial practice shall apply to this Act to avoid the procrastination of the proceedings, but not separate the proceedings just because the different nature of the matters.
Chapter 4 interpret how to apply the legal theories of procedure in consolidated trial. The first part is about the legal theories of procedure which shall be amended in consolidated trial, sequentially interpreting these legal theories of procedure which is set and not set into the Family Proceedings Act. In principle, when consolidating the proceedings with different natures, the proceeding of family suit shall be as a focus. Therefore, in these cases, the matters shall be trialed by judgment, and shall not be held in public if the court, and hearing through oral argument. Besides, the restricts of abandoning and admitting the claim in Act 46 I of the Family Proceedings Act should also be interpret appropriately to meet the purpose of Integration of procedure. The second part of this chapter introduce the which would not be amended in consolidated trial, concluding: Timely proposed doctrine, the System of ex offici and Cooperative System; Strict Proof and Free Proof; the Standard of Proof; and the effective of judgments and ruling. Except for those can apply to the proviso of Act 10 II of the Family Proceedings Act, the proviso of Act 278 II of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the proviso of Act 288 II of the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid the disagreement of judgments, in the other cases, it doesn't matter to occur the disagreement of judgments by applying different legal theories of procedure in consolidated trial, but the judge should put down in writing of the reason in the judgment.
The fifth chapter probes into the appeals of the judgment of consolidated trial. This chapter focus on the interpretation of Act 44 of the Family Proceedings Act, sequentially analyzing the appealing procedure of the judgment of suits and non-contentious matters, the judgment of several suits, and the ruling of several non-contentious matters. If there is special need of avoiding the disagreement of judgments, it should relax the ristricts of appeal. If the party only appeals against a part of the judgment, the court should hearing by the original proceeding. If the proceeding should be transfer because of an incidental appeal filed by appellee, the court may transfer to the appropriate proceeding. Besides, if necessary, the court should apply Act 44IV by analogy to the cases when the non-contentious matter is premise matter. Also, there may be a different conclusion from which in the Code of Civil Procedure about the allowance of filing an incidental appeal or expanding the demand in third instance of family proceedings to meet the propose of integration of procedure.
Chapter 6 clarifies the disputes of consolidation of proceedings in family mediation and domestic special non-contentious proceedings, including: the elements, and the consolidation or separation of proceedings. The last chapter is to make a conclusion of all disputes above-mentioned. However, the ‘Preclusion Effect of Final and Binding Judgment’ is also related to the propose of Integration of procedure, and it is out of the scope of this thesis, remaining to be study.

並列關鍵字

Integration of procedure ； Family Affairs ； Civil matters ； Consolidation of Proceedings ； Consolidated Trial ； joinder of claims ； Joinder of Parties ； the Amendment and Raising of Claims ； Counterclaim ； Separation of Proceedings ； Separated Trial ； Transfer of Proceedings in Cases of Pendency of Several Family Matters ； Legal Theory of Procedure ； Non-Contentiousness Hearing of Litigation ； Appeal ； to Be Deemed to Be Appeal ； Family Mediation ； Domestic Special Non-contentious Proceedings

參考文獻

10. 李太正，民事事件可否併入家事事件統合處理－以最高法院一○二年度台抗字第八○二號民事裁定為例，月旦裁判時報，第28期，2014年8月，頁37-46。

48. 許政賢，程序法理交錯運用的迷思與反思－最高法院 100 年度台抗字第 99 號民事裁定，月旦裁判時報，第29期，2014年10月，頁23-33。

2. 張涵瑜，家事調解程序之合意裁定及適當裁定制度，臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，103年8月。

1. 王甲乙、楊建華、鄭健才，民事訴訟法新論，三民，2010年。

15. 姚瑞光，民事訴訟法論，三民，2000年11月修正版。