集中審理準備程序之研究-以美國預審制度為借鑑-

A Study of the Pretrial Procedure of Concentrated Trial -Lessons from the U.S of Pretrial System-

邱靖棠(Ching-Tang Chiu)

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(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.00595

摘要

我國於2000年修正民事訴訟法（下稱新法），採行爭點集中審理主義，並將準備程序修正為爭點整理程序。為此，如何於準備程序踐行爭點整理，成為新法施行後之課題。因為集中審理可以促進訴訟審理之效率性及裁判內容之正確性，從而提高人民對司法之信服度，所以如何充實必要之審理，而排除不必要之證據調查，即成為準備程序之重要作業。本文即以有效之爭點整理作為主軸，展開準備程序相關問題之探討，並立基於比較法之研究，進行新法之解釋論甚至立法論，期能助益於準備程序機能之發揮，實現集中審理之目標。
本文共計五章。第一章為研究動機及問題提出。第二章為在我國法準備程序中，如何達成新法集中審理之立法目的。首先針對我國集中審理之意義進行探討，並介紹其程序特徵及優點。其次，則是針對在新法下準備程序所面臨到的學說爭議進行探究。接下來，關於準備程序中如何實踐爭點整理，分成三大部分加以討論。第一部分係有關書狀記載內容之具體化，特別是新法於起訴狀應記載事項中，就訴訟標的之部分增訂「及其原因事實」（第244條第1項第2款），此原因事實之表明，即可能涉及最上位爭點（訴訟標的、訴之聲明）之整理或事實上、證據上之爭點整理。且為避免偏離訴訟上請求（訴之聲明及訴訟標的）而進行無益之審理，法院自受理訴訟之時起，就原告及被告所為之主張即應分別進行一貫性或重要性審查。第二部分是有關當事人於準備程序中之事證蒐集權。新法基於公平、程序法上誠信原則及「當事人訴訟資料平等使用原則」，擴大當事人事證蒐集權限，分別增修「酌許證人之書狀陳述」（第305條第2、3項）、「文書提出義務範圍之擴大」（第344條第1項第5款）以及「擴大證據保全之範圍」（第368條第1項後段），本文將細部介紹各該事證蒐集權限之學說爭議。第三部分則是探討在準備程序中，有關最上位爭點（訴訟標的、訴之聲明）、事實上、證據上以及法律上爭點等整理之操作順序與內涵，並就「爭點整理」及「爭點簡化協議」兩者之意義、拘束力與學說爭議加以介紹。最後，係探討促進訴訟義務，尤其係有關準備程序失權效之例外規定（第276條），特別說明其中有關「顯失公平」之部分在學說、實務上之爭論。
第三章為美國預審程序之制度探討。首先，先就預審程序之成因加以說明。接續則為在預審程序如何為爭點整理之實踐，本文採取與第二章對比之方式，同樣地分成三部分詳加介紹。第一部分為在訴答程序中書狀內容之記載，在1957年Conley v. Gibson案聯邦最高法院所確立之「通知化訴答」（notice pleading）似乎自2007年之Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly案及2009年之Ashcroft v. Iqbal案後，改變了以往之見解，並建立出一套新的訴答標準—「可信性標準」（plausibility standard）。對此晚近實務之最新發展，美國實務可謂已趨於一致，但學說見解則是莫說一是。第二部分為事證開示制度之探討。本部分除介紹事證開示之範圍與限制以及開示之方法外，立法者亦意識到電子儲存資訊之事證開示（E-Discovery）之重要性，為了因應近年來科技之進步（尤其係公司都有以電腦等電子設備來記錄相關資訊之情況），自2006年開始，聯邦民事訴訟規則（下稱FRCP）進行了若干修正，然實務上針對電子事證開示又陸續產生「費用移轉之問題」以及「不慎揭露電子儲存資訊時，是否視為放棄祕匿特權之問題」，前者雖於2006年所修正之FRCP 26（b）（2）（B）已採納Zubulake v.UBS Warburg案所提出之八項要素作為衡量標準，但仍衍生出新的爭議，而在後者，實務則是見解分歧，於此必須加以介紹著名的「Lois Sportswear法則」。另外，為避免此爭議產生，在事證開示之前，實務上尚發展出彌補性協議或快覽協定等解決方法。最後是介紹FRCP 37有關違反事證開示之情況，以及其制裁之手段。第三部分則是探討預審會議所產生之相關問題，其中最重要者，乃係在預審會議後，法官會作成預審裁定，而此裁定原則上具有拘束力，但在「顯不公平」（manifest injustice）之情況下，例外可請求修正，而對此「顯不公平」，美國實務上有提出四個要素作為衡量標準。
第四章則是回顧第二章、第三章之內容，並藉此為著力點分析、比較我國與美國書狀記載內容、事證蒐集制度與準備程序（或預審會議）之相異點，並從中檢討兩國制度之良窳，作為我國解釋論或立法論之借鑑，並嘗試提出本文見解。例如從美國法所可獲得之啟發是，參酌美國法上之書面查詢，本文認應增設當事人間直接查詢制度，以便利當事人於準備程序中，得能事先蒐集有關其主張或舉證所必要之事證資訊，然為防免此制度（不經由法院命令之方式）遭到濫用，宜考慮設若干除外規定，故可參酌FRCP 26（b）（2）（C）、FRCP 26（c）有關事證開示範圍限制及聲請核發保護令之規定。亦即，若此書面查詢對相對人將造成過於不合理之繁複、或可從其他管道、較少負擔或更低之費用取得事證、此要求之負擔或費用超過其可能帶來之利益、或意圖以此制度騷擾當事人、或係有關相對人之隱私、營業秘密等，則可免於答覆。另，我國亦可參酌引進律師照會（查詢）制度，蓋此制不僅同樣有前揭當事人間直接查詢制度之增設理由，並鑑於律師職務之公共性，使律師得就受託事件，經由所屬律師公會之認可，向機關或團體為必要之查證（使其就特定必要事項提出報告或說明），且本照會制度係經由律師公會預就照會內容要求為審查，故亦不致產生濫用而侵害他人權利之情形。此外，並應酌採美國法上有關未對書面查詢提出答覆之制裁規定（FRCP 37（d）（3）），對於怠於提出書面回覆者（包含異議）作出制裁，包括：法院得認請求人所主張之事實為真、禁止相對人於其後提出該事證。法院甚至得易發或併發該未遵守請求之當事人、其律師或者兩者支付因未遵守所致生之合理費用（包含律師費在內），但若相對人未遵守請求係有相當理由或有其他不公平之情事者，則不在此限。而對於有關報告或文書提出之費用由何者償還或負擔之問題，本文則認此當為訴訟費用之一部，原則上由敗訴之當事人負擔（第78條），然法院亦應考慮酌量情形而命勝訴當事人依比例負擔（第81條）。針對爭點整理，為促使當事人積極提出事證資料，必須設有失權制裁，然顧慮準備程序之失權效果過於嚴苛，則設有失權制裁之例外規定，其中「顯失公平」（第276條第1項第4款）在解釋論上之具體內涵我國學說已有所充實，雖與美國實務在判斷「顯不公平」之細項要素上呈現些許不同，但在大方向上則同樣是以利益衡量作為判準。然在我國實務上，法院對於本條款之涵攝過程卻仍不夠細膩，故若能將學說所考量之要素實地操作於個案中，當有助於我國對於「顯失公平」概念之具體化。另外，特別介紹2014年FRCP最新修正草案，此改革方向，部分與我國現行法有相通之處，抑或可成為我國下一步之修正方向。
第五章，結論。為全文總結，並回應第一章之提問，期許本文對我國準備程序之爭點整理，無論係現行法之解釋上，或未來之立法上，皆能有所助益。

關鍵字

集中審理 ； 準備程序 ； 訴答 ； 事證開示 ； 預審會議 ； 爭點整理 ； 爭點簡化協議 ； 一貫性審查 ； 可信信標準 ； 失權效 ； 顯失公平

並列摘要

In 2000, Taiwan amends Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter as New Code) adopting centralism of issue to judge, and preparatory proceeding is amended and becomes procedure of formulation of the issues. Consequently how to formulate issues in preparatory proceeding becomes a topic after New Code enforcement. Because concentrated trial can promote efficiency of judgment, correctness of written form of judgment, and enhance persuasiveness of justice to the people, hence, how to strengthen judgment, excluding dispensable evidences to investigate is important task in preparatory proceeding. The thesis is according to effective formulation of the issues to expand relative to discuss of issues in preparatory proceeding, and comparative law-based proceeds explanation and lawmaking. Hoping to assist function of preparatory proceeding to elaborate accomplishes target of concentrated trial.
The thesis totally has five chapters. Chapter 1 is about motive of study and question awareness. Chapter 2 is about how to realize legislative purposes of concentrated trial in preparatory proceeding in New Code in Taiwan. First, discuss the meaning of concentrated trial in Taiwan, and introduce its features and advantages. Secondly, discuss controversial debate about preparatory proceeding in New Code. Next, how to practice formulation of the issues in preparatory proceeding, it can be divided into three parts. The first part is about concretizing of content in pleadings, especially in New Code complaint shall be indicated matters, except subject of the action, and it revises and augments to put down “the transaction or occurrence giving rise to such claim” (see Article 244, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2) that may involve formulation of the issues about supremacy (subject of the action, the demand for judgment for the relief sought), fact and evidence. Furthermore, avoid to diverge from claim to proceed unprofitably judgment, when court accept action, it should proceed to examine coherency or importance regarding plaintiff and defendant of claim. The second part is about the right of party in collecting facts and evidences in preparatory proceeding. New Code is base on impartiality, good faith principle in procedure law, and equal doctrine of party in using action materials, to expand right of party in collecting facts and evidences, revising and augmenting “grant witness to make statements by pleadings” (see Article 305, Paragraph 2 and 3), “broaden the scope about the duty to produce documents” (see Article 344, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5), and “broaden the scope about perpetuation of evidence” (see Article 368, Paragraph 1 in the rear), the thesis will introduce particularly. The third part is about manipulating sequence and intension of formulation of the issues about supremacy (subject of the action, the demand for judgment for the relief sought), fact and evidence. Moreover, the thesis also will introduce meaning, binding force, and controversial debate about “formulation of the issues” and ”agreement of formulating and simplifying the issues ”. Finally, the thesis will discuss party’s obligation of Promotion of Process, particularly to explain “manifestly unfair” (see Article 276, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4) of preclusion effect which causes greatestly debate in the academia and court.
Chapter 3 is about system of pretrial procedure in America. First, the thesis will illustrate the cause of pretrial procedure, and next will discuss how to practice formulation of the issues in the pretrial procedure. The thesis will adopt contrast with Chapter 2, and divide into three parts to introduce alike. The first part is about content of pleadings in pleading, in 1957 in Conley v. Gibson, supreme court of the United States establishes “notice pleading” but after in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and in Ashcroft v. Iqbal(2009), it changes precedent, building up a new standard of pleading – “plausibility standard”. For this latest development, judicial opinions tend to identical, but there are discrepancies between the academia. The second part is about system of discovery. In this part, except that introduce scope, restriction and measures of discovery, lawmaker also aware of importance of E-Discovery, for coping with advancement of technology (especially nowadays companies often store information by computers), since 2006 Federal rules of civil procedure (hereafter as FRCP) proceed amendment, but in practice E-Discovery bring new problems – one is about cost-shifting, another is about whether an inadvertent disclosure of electronically stored information treats as waiver of privilege. Although the former, amendment to FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) in 2006, adopts Zubulake v.UBS Warburg which puts forward eight factors to weigh, however it still produces new problems; the latter there are different judicial opinions between courts, and the thesis will also introduce well-known “Lois Sportswear theory”. In addition, for avoiding bring dispute, before discovery, the party may use “claw-back clause” or “quick peek agreement” to resolve it. Finally, the thesis will introduce FRCP 37 which is about failure to make disclosures or to cooperate in discovery and sanctions. The third part is about pretrial conference. Importantly, after pretrial conference judge will issue a pretrial order which controls the course of the action, but preventing manifest injustice the party can request to amend it. How to explain manifest injustice, there are four factors to weigh.
Chapter 4 is about reviewing chapter 2 and chapter 3, analyzing and comparing to differences of pleadings, discovery and preparatory proceeding (or pretrial conference) between Taiwan and America, reviewing advantage and defect, referring to FRCP to explanation and lawmaking of New Code, and try to address my opinion. For example, comparing to interrogatories in FRCP, the thesis advises Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure should stipulate that interrogates to parties directly to facilitate parties can collect facts and evidences which is relevant to any party's claim or defense in advance. However, avoiding it is misused, Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure could refer to FRCP 26(b)(2)(B), FRCP 26(c) which is about discovery scope and limits and protective orders to set proviso. Moreover, Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure also could adopt interrogatories by lawyers, because there is not only the same reason like interrogatories to parties, but also lawyer’s mission has public welfare to people. By permission of bar association, lawyer designated by party in a legal case can investigate to establishments (ordering them to report or illustrate specific matters), and matters regarding legal case is reviewed by bar association when lawyer apply for it, it don’t worry about that the system would be abused by lawyer. Besides, the thesis advises to refer to FRCP 37(d)(3) regarding party’s failure to serve answers to interrogatories would be sanctioned. For formulation of the issues, the thesis will especially discuss “manifestly unfair” (see Article 276, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4). Comparing with judicial opinions in Taiwan and America, we may find that our courts regarding explanation of “manifestly unfair” are rough, if our courts can consider factors which the academia has addressed, it could help specificity of concept of “manifestly unfair”. Finally, the thesis especially introduces the latest FRCP amendment in 2014, it could be reference materials if New Code would be amended in the future.
Chapter 5 is the conclusion, and responds to questions in Chapter 1.

並列關鍵字

concentrated trial ； preparatory proceeding ； pleading ； discovery ； pretrial conference ； formulation of the issue ； agreement of formulating and simplifying the issue ； plausibility standard ； manifestly unfair

參考文獻

楊佩文（2009），《美國聯邦民事訴訟程序法有關證據開示程序之研究—以電子化儲存資訊為中心》，國立交通大學管理學院碩士論文。

立法院司法委員會編，民事訴訟法部分條文修正案（2000），法律案253輯（上）。

姜世明（2009），《民事訴訟法基礎論》，台北：元照。

許士宦（2014），〈2013年民事程序法發展回顧：家事及民事裁判之新發展〉，《台大法學論叢》，第43卷特刊。

許士宦（2009），〈集中審理制度之新審理原則〉，《台大法學論叢》，第38卷第2期。