第三人撤銷訴訟之兩岸法律比較研究—以制度機能和原告適格為中心

2012年，中國大陸民事訴訟法進行了自1982年首次立法以來的全面大修。在眾修訂內容中，繼受於台灣之第三人撤銷訴訟成為學界和業界關注之重點。縱制度於大陸入法有特別之現實契機，最初的立法意旨是遏止虛假訴訟，但司法實踐中亦得見程序保障機能之發揮。程序之原告適格始終是討論要點。本論文以大陸民訴法及其司法解釋有關於第三人撤銷訴訟的規定為研究之樣本，以第三人撤銷訴訟在解釋論上和運用論上的相關問題為研究之出發點，加以比較該制度繼受地，台灣民事訴訟法相同程序之規定和實務、學說上的解釋，亦參照台灣其他與該程序相關之配套制度的構建，觀察差異和共性。台灣在立法上有值得借鏡之處，得作為大陸民訴法之立法建議。亦觀察台灣以不同程序目的為核心的，學說上的解釋論，觀察何種解釋最具移植適用於大陸之可能性和合理性，能令第三人撤銷訴訟之立法基礎更合體系性、目的性，亦充實該制度運行之正當性。復以大陸實務見解為佐證，證明程序保障之基本原則已經逐步開始滲透於大陸之司法實踐，縱未明文化，不妨礙追求程序正義成為司法正義的題中之義，而不再僅限於做服務實體法的手段工具，進而亦能促進未來其他程序制度之立法意旨更為完善，和就程序本身之重要機能的更為關注。藉以引介同樣以法典為核心的台灣在第三人撤銷訴訟制度上的優勢，檢視修正大陸該制度在立法上的缺陷和解釋論上的不足，以期研究成果能更好的本於大陸法律之內涵和功能，在合於法制環境的前提下，最終推動實務上之更進步。惟需要於此說明的是，縱就增訂該程序制度之立法邏輯的起點來說，兩岸有本質之不同，但實務之走向呈現明顯的殊途同歸之勢，非不可謂未來在立法論上有修正完備之機會，此可能性係本論文覺得可就兩岸法律做相關比較後，檢討、反思、借鏡台灣法之原因所在。當然，就第三人撤銷訴訟所立基之民事訴訟基本理論，既判力制度而言，中國大陸處於一個理論上重視，而立法、實踐卻頗為忽視之尷尬窘境，看似因此而欠缺與既判力制度已完整建置，並成為包括第三人撤銷訴訟在內的諸多民事程序制度得以運作之基本原則的台灣法做對照比較之必要，但本文以為，無論是出於妥適解釋尚未制度化既判力之現行法，以利司法實務透過法理解釋亦有運作該程序之正當性基礎，或是考量到未來中國大陸明文化既判力制度後，第三人撤銷訴訟如何良善運行應先做相關理論之準備，皆有必要分析台灣在既判力制度基礎上增訂該程序之立法意旨，學習如何為合目的性、體系性之解釋，及借鏡如何運行該制度甚是建立其他配套程序。從學習和精進之角度出發，或許更能理解比較兩岸現行法之意義所在。需先說明的是，本文係秉持既判力對世效有深刻弊端之態度來反思相關問題，認為縱中國大陸現行法規未為非常完備之既判力制度規定，向來之法制歷史和目前之法治環境，似也難謂係既判力制度得真正發揮機能的良好土壤。惟不可將萬事皆推於國情現狀，仍因思考透過制度之進步推動司法實踐之改觀。既然立法論上無法有立竿見影之變化，更應從解釋論之角度，將台灣以程序保障為中心的立法及對立法的論述和適用，經過吸收調整後結合具體的、實際的大陸現行法和司法實踐，催生出最妥適的，能夠不唯既判力對世效為法理基礎的解釋。例如關於第三人撤銷訴訟之原告適格問題，固以既判力之絕對效最容易直接說明為何大陸目前該程序之當事人適格，範圍如此之廣標準如此之寬鬆，但應視其為實然狀況下不得已之解釋。而事實上擴張之正當性基礎是極其缺乏的，亟須尋找更為適宜之解釋角度。既得作為原則正當化判決效力擴張及於第三人，亦能作為基礎更為妥適的解說原告適格當事人之範圍，以免落入以對世效為應然之誤區，僅簡單地憑以效力及於所有他人之理論運作第三人撤銷訴訟制度，導致盲目擴大匡列之原告適格範圍，卻難覓應具備之正當性基礎。本論文共分為四章，整體循提出問題，分析問題和解決問題的輪廓思路，以制度機能和原告適格為討論之中心，因應立法已成定局和修法難度之高，嘗試將研究之重點更為集中於解釋論之角度，以彌補立法論上業已存在之誤區。第一章緒論說明本文之研究動機，基於第三人撤銷訴訟於中國大陸之特殊性、必要性及因相關法理問題導致程序適用上的諸多弊端，進而提出研究之問題意識，主要集中於制度機能和適格主體方面。又因該程序制度基本完全繼受於台灣法，說明將比較法內容多集中於台灣之重要性，突出程序保障的視角。第二章分二節。第一節以大陸民訴法就第三人撤銷訴訟制度機能和相關爭議為觸發基礎，首先分析第三人撤銷訴訟之概念定義，釐清其與其他程序法上制度之區別，著重於再審程序，以凸顯其獨特的制度意義和充實其必要性；其次分析程序特性，以說明第三人撤銷訴訟具事後性、特別性和補充性之本質。這一定性將對後文分析該程序之原告適格與訴訟參加之主體適格的相互關係、事前的程序保障和事後的程序保障互為配套以合理支撐和藉以界定判決效力主觀範圍大小之理論起奠基作用；再簡要談及第三人撤銷訴訟屬於何種訴訟類型，重點以比較域外法之視角，梳理世界範圍內第三人撤銷訴訟之立法呈現樣態及對中國大陸該程序制度框架設計之影響。第二節則是討論之重點，不僅係研究本制度需建構之相關程序法概念之理論根基，亦是後續談及原告適格要件之前導，制度機能於大陸之獨特意義，比較台灣法之立法旨趣，以肯定程序保障之重要和程序保障之必要；第二節並將探討第三人撤銷訴訟與案外人申請再審於程序上的區別及如何競合適用，亦將結合審判實務，談論與現行法之相關矛盾，並藉台灣法為觀察視角，看是否能更好地解釋、回應對該制度之詬病。第三章係本文篇幅最長之一章節，聚焦於第三人撤銷訴訟之原告適格者，即何人具本訴訟實施權。第一節以中國大陸學術界就該問題之質疑為切入點，並藉以制度缺陷談及致生之實務困境，以及為解決上開問題，相關立法、司法機關之回應和學說上的擴張解釋。再者，從比較法的角度平行討論同樣或類似問題在台灣之爭議以及程序保障理論視角下之解釋論回應。最後再基於對中國大陸法律解釋方法之分析，衍生關於第三人撤銷訴訟適格原告之解釋是否妥適之探討，並著眼於比較法角度討論自台灣相關學說之解讀可得的借鑒和啟發。第二節係本章之最後落腳點，討論究竟該如何辨明第三人撤銷訴訟之適格原告。首先，應嚴格遵循文義解釋之原則，以劃定參與訴訟之適格第三人範圍為撤銷訴訟原告當事人適格之最基本前提，其中即涉及大陸有獨三、無獨三與台灣第三人干預訴訟、第三人訴訟參加之對照和比較；因應當事人適格概念之不確定性，以類型化之個案為各該分析討論之面向，一併檢視其中是否有程序保障理論之運用，以再重申程序權保障於兩岸之必要和重要。再者，涉及判斷適格原告之其他要件，亦以比較法為視角，觀察在一般判斷基準之層面上，特別是實體法之權利義務關係對要件之影響是否有共通之處。最後一節經過前兩節之分析，回歸本章之問題意識，即回答和解決何人為第三人撤銷訴訟之原告適格者。以是否受生效裁判效力擴張所及為分類依據，首先探討：未受充足程序保障之特定受讓人、被擔當者為適格原告之情形，和縱已受事前的程序保障，當第三人其真正之訴訟地位令其即便參與訴訟亦無法為充分之攻擊防禦時，是否有必要視其為非因己之原因未參與訴訟而得啟動第三人撤銷訴訟以為事後之救濟。其二為探討：未受確定判決效力所及之案外人是否必不具撤銷訴訟之原告適格，以人事訴訟之特定利害關係人和一般債權人為適例，並嘗試就未有家事事件法之大陸現行法制，從既判力對世效之觀念和法理推論來解釋該問題。第四章歸納總結全文主要論點，再次簡要回應制度機能和原告適格之相關核心問題，並提供研究範圍內所能展望的解決路徑，其中重要一環即為應學習台灣增訂更為周全之配套制度，例如法官職權通知和當事人訴訟告知，並藉助台灣學者思考較為完整之解釋論，以中國大陸之法制現狀為背景，對現行法為體系性、合目的性之再解釋後，進而檢討該程序要真正發揮應有之實質作用，需要的不僅是相關立法或司法解釋之完善，而是民訴基礎理論既判力之明朗。

關鍵字

第三人撤銷訴訟；制度機能；參加訴訟；原告適格；判決效力擴張；既判力；程序保障；法官職權通知

並列摘要

The Civil Procedure Law of Mainland China underwent a comprehensive overhaul in the year of 2012 since it was first enacted in the year of 1982. It becomes the key concentrate for the academic and industry field about the lawsuit of revocation by the third party inherited from Taiwan therein. We can see that the procedural safeguards function can be applied through the above system from which has been amended into the law resulted from special circumstances. However, from the both sides of Mainland China and Taiwan, the standing of plaintiff and its attached extension of the effect of the Judgment have always been the main points of discussion. This paper is divided into four chapters. It is based on the outline of raising problems, analyzing problems and solving problems. It intends to take the meaning of the lawsuit of revocation by the third party in the Civil Procedure Law of the Mainland China as the explanation basis. The first chapter explains the research motivation of this paper. Based on the particularity and necessity of the lawsuit of revocation by the third party in Mainland China, as well as the drawbacks in the application of procedures caused by the relevant legal theory, the first chapter then identifies the issue, which is mainly focused on the system function and the qualification of the subject. And since the procedural system is basically completely inherited from law of Taiwan, it explains the importance of focusing more on the comparative law in Taiwan and highlights the perspective of procedural safeguards. The first section of the second chapter is based on the function of the lawsuit of revocation by the third party and related disputes in the Civil Procedure Law of the Mainland. Firstly, it analyzes the definition of the lawsuit of revocation by the third party, clarifies the differences from other procedural laws, and focuses on the retrial procedure, so as to highlight its unique system significance and enrich its necessity. Secondly, it analyzes the characteristics of the procedure to explain the nature of post-mortem, particularity and complementariness the lawsuit of revocation by the third party. This will lay the foundation for the analysis of the relationship between the standing of plaintiff and the qualification of the subject intervention in the litigation, the pre-procedural safeguard and the subsequent procedural safeguard are reasonable support for each other, and the theory of reasonable support defines the subjective scope of judgement effcetiveness. Then this section briefly discusses what kind of the lawsuit of revocation by the third party belongs to, focusing on the comparison of the extraterritorial law, and sorts out the legislative status of the third party’s withdrawal of litigation in the world and its impact on the design of the procedural system framework in Mainland China. The second section of this chapter is the focus of discussion. It is not only the theoretical foundation of the relevant procedural law concepts that need to be constructed in this system, but also the precursor of the subsequent discussion about the standing of plaintiff and the unique significance of the system function in the Mainland. It compares the system purport of Taiwan laws to affirm the importance and necessity of procedural safeguards. The second section will also discuss the procedural differences between the lawsuit of revocation by the third party and retrials applied by the third party and how to apply based on the principle of enactments overlapping. It will also be discussed in conjunction with trial practice, contradictions with the current law, and take the Taiwan law as an observation perspective to see if it can better explain and respond to criticisms of the system. The third chapter is the longest chapter in this paper, focusing on the plaintiff who is standing in the third party’s revocation action, that is, who has the right to implement the action. The first section takes Mainland academia as a starting point for questioning this issue, and discusses the practical dilemma of causing problems by institutional defects, as well as the relevant legislative, judicial responses and amplified interpretation to solve the problem. Furthermore, from the perspective of comparative law, this section discusses the controversy of the same or similar issues in Taiwan and the interpretative response based on procedural safeguard theory. Finally, based on the analysis of the legal interpretation methods in Mainland, this section derives a discussion on whether the interpretation of the standing of plaintiff for the third party’s revocation is appropriate, and discusses the reference and enlightenment from the interpretation of relevant theories in Taiwan from the perspective of comparative law. The second section of this chapter discusses how to identify the standing of plaintiff of the third-party revocation action. First of all, the principle of literal interpretation should be strictly followed, and the scope of eligible third party to participate in the litigation should be the most basic prerequisite for revocation of the standing of plaintiff, which involves the contrast and comparison between the Mainland’s no independent third party, independent third party and third party’s intervention in litigation and the third party’s participation in litigation in Taiwan. In response to the uncertainty of the concept of the party's qualification, this paper takes the typed cases as the orientation of the analysis and discussion, and intersperses with the concept of procedural guarantee. Furthermore, regarding other elements related to the judgment of a standing plaintiff, we also use comparative law as the perspective to observe whether there is any commonality in the influence of the substantive law’s rights and obligations on the elements at the level of general judgment standards. Finally, through the analysis of the first two sections, we return to the question of this chapter, that is, to answer and resolve who is the standing plaintiff of the third party to withdraw the lawsuit, based on whether it is subject to the extension of the effectiveness of the effective judgment, it discusses the circumstances under which specific assignees who are not protected by adequate procedures, persons who are standing plaintiffs and third parties who have been protected by prior procedures, and when true litigation status makes someone unable to fully defend against attacks even if he participates in the litigation, whether it is necessary to treat him as a non-participation in the litigation for reasons not for his own sake and to initiate a third-party revocation litigation as a subsequent relief. And whether the third party who is not subject to the effect of the judgment is not qualified as the plaintiff to withdraw the litigation. Taking the specific interested party and the general creditor of the personnel litigation as examples, this chapter attempts to explain the problem from the concept of res judicata to the world effect and the legal reasoning of the current legal system in mainland China, which does not have the family event law. The fourth chapter summarizes the main arguments of this paper, and once again briefly responds to the core issues related to the function of the system and the standing of plaintiff, and provides the solutions that can be conceived within the scope of the study. One of the important links is to learn from Taiwan to update more comprehensive corresponding systems, such as the notification of the judge and the litigation notification for the parties, and on the basis of Taiwan scholars’ research to think about a more complete theory of interpretation. In the context of the current legal system in Mainland China, and after the reinterpretation of the systematic and purposive nature of the current law, it is not only the review of relevant legislation or the perfection of judicial interpretation that the procedure should really play its essential role, but the clarity of the basic theory of civil litigation.