國際民事訴訟競合之研究—以同一事件與相關事件為中心

國際社會交通往來日漸頻繁，各國法院出現越來越多的涉外民事紛爭事件。而當同一當事人就同一訴訟標的在外國法院起訴後，於該訴訟繫屬中，又於有管轄權之內國法院更行起訴時，將發生所謂國際訴訟競合。早期，許多國家採取放任主義，無視於此情形為當事人及公眾所帶來之不利益。隨著國際民事訴訟法制之發展，各國開始對於國際訴訟競合之議題採取規制之態度。例如：日本法上，實務及學說採取管轄規制（特別情況理論）及承認外國判決預測（日本民訴法第118條、第142條）之手段；並於2012年施行新法第3條之9規定。歐洲聯盟則於布魯賽爾第一之一號規則第29條以下，進行規範。美國法則使用核發禁訴令、不便利法庭原則及未決訴訟法理，加以規制。我國亦於2003年增訂民訴法第182條之2，以獨立條文規範國際訴訟競合。國內重複起訴之情形，乃透過民訴法第253條之規定加以處理。然而，我國實務所採取之「古典同一事件」概念似無法完全涵納所有可能發生裁判矛盾之重複起訴情形，故學說發展出「新同一事件說」及「重複起訴禁止原則擴大論」，以新法關於程序保障之規定為基礎（民訴法第第199條、第199條之1、第255條、第259條），承認非同一訴訟標的但有實質關連之相關事件訴訟，亦為民訴法第253條所謂「已起訴之事件」，以解決此問題。民訴法第182條之2作為第253條之特別規定，其構成要件為何，亦有釐清之必要。其中，就「已繫屬於外國法院之事件」要件，如何解釋以達立法理由所稱「訴訟經濟、防止判決牴觸，並維護當事人之公平，避免同時奔波兩地應訴」之目的，值得探討。本文以日本法、歐盟法及美國法上處理國際訴訟競合中「同一事件與相關事件」概念，作為比較之對象，發現外國法多不限以「相同訴之聲明及訴之標的」，理解國際訴訟競合中之同一事件，而承認非同一訴訟標的但有實質關連之「相關事件（訴訟）」間，亦有停止或駁回國內訴訟之必要。而考慮到上述各國所採取之解釋論以及國際訴訟競合情形與國內重複起訴禁止情況同樣有訴訟經濟、防止判決牴觸及避免當事人兩地應訴等目的追求，對於民訴法第182條之2「同一事件與相關事件」概念，宜採「新同一事件說」及「重複起訴禁止原則擴大論」所發展之非同一訴訟標的但有實質關連之「相關事件（訴訟）」概念，以達立法目的以及國際司法管理權之和諧與互助。並且，基於國際訴訟競合之特殊性（承認外國判決之不確定性、原告之時效中斷及提起保全程序利益），不宜於國內外之訴訟為同一事件或相關事件時，逕認國內之訴欠缺訴之利益或確認利益，以保障權利人於我國提訴之利益。此外，除了寬認國際間同一事件及相關事件外，法院宜行使闡明權，盡可能使相關連之紛爭於同一程序上加以解決，使將來外國確定判決於我國發生效力時，一併解決繫屬於我國法院之結果程序紛爭，並於特定情況下，促使當事人合意選定我國法院作為紛爭解決之法庭地，以平衡兼顧當事人因停止訴訟所受之不利益。至於民訴法第182條之2其他要件方面，所謂「更行起訴」係指「本案訴訟程序」而言，而不包含訴訟前置程序、暫時權利保護程序等，否則當事人將可尋求該等程序影響原告進行本案訴訟之權利。而外國判決承認之預測審查上，由於公序良俗條款（民訴法第402條第3款）具有高度不確定性且各國對於類似條文之解釋採取嚴格解釋之趨勢下，當無明顯事實外國將作出違背我國公序良俗之判決時，宜認為通過判決承認之預測。再者，被告是否在外國應訴具有重大不便，此要件不僅要求當事人於外國應訴之「不便利性」，亦要求「重大性」，故法院宜以「例外性」及違反「程序基本權程度」之角度，審酌之。另外，民訴法第182條之2最大特色為，對於停止國內訴訟程序與否一事，給予法院裁量空間。外國立法例中，許多國家採取利益衡量手段，決定國內外訴訟之優先性，或非僅以外國判決將受國內承認為由，停止或駁回國內訴訟，而係考量外國程序進行階段、當事人之負擔、適當司法之管理、訴訟是否延滯、公平原則、訴訟經濟及司法效率等，而兼採利益衡量立場，彈性處理國際訴訟競合問題。從此立場觀之，寬認國際訴訟競合中之同一事件及相關事件概念，亦不致我國之後繫屬程序一概停止，當「繫屬於外國法院之事件」未該當民訴法第182條之2其他要件（判決承認預測）或停止國內訴訟程序有其不適當時（利益衡量之結果），此時國內程序將不停止，而不致過度侵害國內原告提訴之權利。最後，第182條之2第1項但書賦予我國訴訟雙方當事人程序選擇權，由我國對競合訴訟進行審理，宜將此規定解為係為優先尊重當事人間定國際管轄（選定法庭地）之合意，遂將其推定為專屬（排他）性合意國際審判管轄。若將來外國法院仍作成判決確定時，該判決可因欠缺管轄權，在我國不承認其效力，以確保「法的安定性」及「預測可能性」。

關鍵字

國際訴訟競合；重複起訴禁止；同一事件；相關事件；未決訴訟；訴訟標的

並列摘要

With the increasing of international interactions, more and more civil cases concerning foreign parties or affairs are having been brought into courts. “International Parallel Litigations ” means that same matters between same parties are brought into different courts in different countries. In the early time, many countries ignored the inconvenience and harm on parties and the public which this situation brought. With the development of international civil procedural laws, some countries began to regulate this issue by enacting laws and building leading cases. For example, in Japanese law, courts and scholars use “special condition” to regulate international jurisdictions or make prediction of recognition of foreign judgements to decide whether to dismiss the domestic actions (Article 118, 142 of Code of Civil Procedure of Japan). In 2012, the parliament of Japan enacted and enforced the new law “Article 3-9 of Code of Civil Procedure of Japan”, and Supreme Court of Japan applied the new law to dismiss a parallel action inland in 2016 which set up a solid way for domestic courts to follow. In Europe, EU countries enacted the Brussels Ia Regulation to regulate the issue. In Article 29, when proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established. In the United States, courts issue anti-suit injunctions to confine the bringing or continuation of same-matter litigations. Or courts sometimes dismiss inland actions according to Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. Recently, American courts apply the principle of lis alibi pendens to suspend or dismiss inland actions more frequently. In 2003, Judicial Yuan and Legislative Yuan of Republic of China (Taiwan) also enacted and passed Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, and courts can accord this article to stay proceedings when a same-matter proceeding is pending in a foreign court. This article is an independent and function-oriented article for issues concerning international parallel litigations. In Taiwan, courts accord Article 253 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure to regulate inland parallel litigations (lis pendens). However, the concept “traditional Same Matter” can not cover and regulate all the parallel actions which may lead to contradictory judgements. Therefore, scholars developed the concept “Newly Same Matter” and “Expanding Theory of Lis Pendens” to cover parallel proceedings not within the same-matter but substantially related realm, and to strengthen the protection of procedural rights at the same time (Article 199, 199-1, 255, 259). As a regulation similar to Article 253 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure and enacted specifically to regulate international parallel litigations, the requisite elements of Article182-2 should be clarified and explained appropriately. Specifically, how to explain the concept “pending action with regard to subject matter” to fulfill the goals which Article 182-2 was enacted to achieve including “ judicial economy, prevention of contradictory judgements, fairness of parties, and avoidance of appearance in different courts” is important. This thesis focuses on concepts “same matters and related actions in international parallel litigations” of Japanese laws, EU laws and American Laws, and compare these foreign laws with Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. It can be found that the concepts “same matters and related actions in international parallel litigations” require not the same claims and same subject matters in most foreign laws. Otherwise, actions which cover different subject matters but have similar factual or legal issues are deemed as “international parallel litigations”. Since the international parallel litigations (lis alibi pendens) are similar to situations when same matters between same parties are brought into different courts in a country (lis pendens), the rules for above situations have similar functions, including judicial economy, prevention of contradictory judgements and appearance in different courts. In addition, more and more countries use broad way to define the concept “same matters” or build the concept “related actions” to regulate international parallel litigations. Thus, the concept “pending action with regard to subject matter” of Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure should include not only “traditional Same Matter” developed by courts but also “substantially related actions” advanced by scholars in Taiwan. By doing so, the judicial practices in Taiwan can realize the aims which Article 182-2 was enacted to attain and harmony of international judicial administration. Moreover, situations concerning international parallel litigations have some features different from situations inland (lis pendens). In international parallel litigations, what should be concerned carefully are the uncertainty of recognition of foreign judgements and the interests of interruption of period on substantial laws and maintenances of provisional measures. Therefore, when international parallel litigations happen, it is not appropriate that courts dismiss an inland action directly due to the lack of legal interest. In the meantime, courts shall direct parties to amend his/her claims, raise additional claims or raise a counterclaim in foreign courts to let related issues are solved in a proceeding. In this way, when foreign judgements take effect inlands, related issues will be solved at the same time. In some situations, courts shall direct parties to consent to have the subject matter adjudicated by the Taiwan court. By doing so, we can alleviate the defects of staying an action and fulfill the procedural rights of parties. As for other requisite elements of Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, the concept “action” refers to “proceeding for judgment on the merits” so as not to let preceding procedures or proceedings for temporary remedies to deter the right of instituting legal proceedings. Moreover, when courts predict whether or not the foreign proceeding will make a final judgement and it will be recognized by Taiwan pursuant to Article 402 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, due to the vague and uncertain concept “R.O.C. public policy or morals”(Item 3 of Article 402 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure) and the tendency of rigid explanations in similar ideas internationally, when there is no obvious fact that a foreign judgements will be made and be contrary to R.O.C. public policy or morals, the foreign proceeding is expected to make a final judgement and it will be recognized by Taiwan automatically. As for the concept “substantially inconvenient for the defendant to litigate in foreign country”, it does not only require facts that foreign is inconvenient for the defendant, but also require the inconvenience to the extent of depriving the procedural rights pursuant to Article 182-2. Besides, the iconic feature of Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure is that courts can decide whether to stay actions by evaluating versatile interests. Many countries evaluate interests and defects, including the stage of proceedings, burdens of parties, judicial managements, untimely-raised issues, fairness, judicial economy and efficiency, when regulating international parallel litigations. From the perspective, the elastic explaining of the concept “same matters and related actions” will not cause the tendency of staying actions, when “same matters or related actions” is deemed as a requisite element but not a sufficient condition. In other words, there are other requisite elements in Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, and courts shall not stay proceedings when other requisite elements are not met or it is inappropriate to stay proceedings after assessing versatile interests. Finally, Section 1 of Article 182-2 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure provides parties with the right of procedural options which offers parties a choice to resolve disputes in Taiwan. This section set the priority and respect on the consent of international jurisdictions by parties. When parties reach to the consent, it shall be deemed as an exclusive agreement of international jurisdictions. If a final judgement of the same matter is made in a foreign court, the foreign judgement shall not be recognized for lacking jurisdiction pursuant to the R.O.C. laws to assure the legal stability and foreseeability.