透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.221.110.87
  • 學位論文

新當事人恆定制度之建構—以訴訟繫屬中系爭物移轉為中心

Establishing the Principle of New Permanent Party

指導教授 : 許士宦

摘要


關於訴訟繫屬中系爭物移轉所造成之程序法上問題,於外國法例之解決方策上,大致可區分為德國、奧地利型「當事人恆定制度」及日本型「訴訟承繼制度」。而我國於民國24年2月1日修正公布並自同年7月1日施行之民事訴訟法,原則上亦採與德、奧立法例相仿之當事人恆定制度。然而,我國民訴法於歷經1999年、2000年及2003年幾次重大修正後,一方面雖仍維持當事人恆定原則,但另一方面,又增訂法院職權通知義務及訴訟繫屬登記制度,並增訂法院得以裁定許可受讓人承當訴訟及刪除須得他造當事人同意始得提起干預訴訟規定。此外,亦增訂第三人撤銷判決之訴以作為事前程序保障不足之配套。準此,我國新民訴法下之當事人恆定制度,在法文上已顯與存在於德國及舊法之當事人恆定制度不同。而本文之探討核心即係對此法文外觀所顯現之差異,探究立法者所賦予新法下當事人恆定制度之新機能。為此,本文擬從「系爭物移轉造成程序主體變動」、「系爭物移轉造成程序客體變動」、「系爭物移轉造成既判力主、客觀範圍擴張」及「系爭物移轉造成執行力、主客觀範圍擴張」四個層面,使我國新法所定當事人恆定制度之獨特性嶄新性呈現。本文共計六章,除第一章為緒論、第六章為結論外,依循上述四個層面而分為四部分。第一部分(第二章)係以「訴訟繫屬中系爭物移轉所造成之程序主體變動」為探討重心。首先,從德、日立法例為比較考察,探究位於光譜兩端之德國當事人恆定制度及日本訴訟承繼制度其固有規範目的,及基於其利益權衡而採取對程序主體變動之處置。其次,將焦點回置於我國新法下當事人恆定制度所呈現之規範機能,以此探究向來存在於舊法時代之解釋論是否尚能適應於立法者所提示之要求,並重新確認於何種情形下,系爭物移轉會造成當事人恆定制度適用而生其程序主體變動之效果。第二部分(第三章)係以「系爭物移轉所造成之程序客體變動」為中心。首先以德國當事人恆定制度為始,探究其向來所為爭論重心之「影響說」及「無影響說」之具體內容,並呈現其各自優缺點。其次,再以日本訴訟承繼制度為中介,探究若不適用「無影響說」而以程序客體變動為原則,則程序客體變動之真實態樣上實際運作之情形為何。最後,則以我國新當事人恆定制度所具機能及程序客體特定必要性觀點,以此探究系爭物移轉於程序客體係以變動為原則,抑或縱使認為無庸變動卻非如德國「無影響」說所指,於程序上視為無移轉。第三部分(第四章)係以「訴訟繫屬中系爭物移轉所造成之既判力主、客觀範圍變動」為核心。在此,仍以德國學說上的理論構成為起始,並以日本學說為借鏡,分析其既判力主、客觀範圍擴張背後之根據及所採擇對於受既判力主觀範圍所及之繼受人固有利益保障方式為何。最後,再以我國新民訴法下有關於事前及事後程序保障制度健全後,立法者所重新提示之既判力主觀範圍擴張觀點,以此明確化既判力主觀範圍擴張及於繼受人所具真義,其中亦包括繼受人所不得爭執者為究屬經前訴判決確定之法律關係,抑或為其與前訴當事人間之法律關係,亦即為既判力客觀範圍有無擴張之問題。第四部分(第五章)係以「訴訟繫屬中系爭物移轉所造成之執行力主、客觀範圍擴張」為主要內容。關於在此涉及之執行力,實與上述既判力主、客觀範圍擴張同為確定判決效力擴張之一環。因此在理論構成上或有其近似之處。然而,仍應注意執行力與既判力所具功能差異為何。在此,即以德國及日本學說上關於繼受執行理論為始,再進一步探究存在於我國程序法下非屬德、日型之繼受執行制度所具有之獨特性,及其相關運作有何不同於德、日相關制度,以此完成當事人恆定制度最後一塊拼圖。

並列摘要


The resolution which is be solved the procedure problem caused by the transfer of property matter of the claim to a third person pending such action, is be distinguish between the principle of “Permanence of Party„ which is be accepted by Germany and Austria and the principle of “ Substitution of Party„ which is be accepted by Japan. And than in our country’s Code of Civil Procedure, before the amendment in A.D. 2000 and A.D. 2003, accepted the same resolution with Germany and Austria. But in A.D. 2000 and A.D. 2003, our country’s Code of Civil Procedure has been amend. According to the existing law, the principle of “Permanence of Party„ has be maintained, and on the other side the court has the obligation to notify the third party, who has received the subject matter of the claim, and after the action is initiated, in writing the fact that the action has been transferred, and the court in which the action is pending may, upon a party's motion, issue a certificate of fact that the action has been initiated so that the party may request the registrar agency to register such fact. In consideration of this amendment, the principle of “Permanence of Party„ under existing Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure has been different from what is under Germen Code of Civil Procedure. This thesis aims at the new function of the principle of “Permanence of Party„ under our country’s new code of civil procedure, and how this function has been different from what is under Germany Code of Civil Procedure. For this aim, this thesis will focus on four subjects. The first is “ how does Transfer of property matter of the claim influence the party of action?„ . The second is “how does Transfer of property matter of the claim influence the pleading ?„ . The third is “how does Transfer of property matter of the claim influence the subjective and objective scope of res judicata?„ . The fourth is “how does Transfer of property matter of the claim influence the subjective and objective scope of effect of enforcement„ . The thesis totally has six chapters. Except the chapter 1 is about objective of study and question awareness, the chapter 6 is conclusion, according to the aforemention four subjects it can be divided into four parts. The first part(chapter 2)is to study the influence of the party of action. The second part(chapter 3)is to study the influence of the claim. The third part(chapter 4)is to study the extension of subjective and objective scope of res judicata. The fourth part(chapter 5) is to study the subjective and objective scope of effect of enforcement.

參考文獻


1.伊藤真(2008),民事訴訟法,第三版三訂版。
5.岡伸浩(2008),民事訴訟法の基礎,第二版
11.高橋宏志(2000),重點講義民事訴訟法(新版)。
21.松本博之=上野泰男(2010),民事訴訟法,第六版
23.三ヶ月章(2008),民事訴訟法,第三版。

被引用紀錄


張家茹(2016)。民事訴訟上職權通知制度與判決對第三人拘束力─第三人程序保障下之統一解決紛爭─〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201610129
林敬堂(2016)。民事實體權利保障與既判力主觀範圍之研析〔碩士論文,國立中正大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0033-2110201614055256

延伸閱讀