再審訴訟之研究－以再審事由為中心

A Study on the Rehearing Proceeding－Focus on Rehearing Action

陳潼彬(Tong-Bin Chen)

指導教授 ： 吳從周

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2009年)

摘要

在判決確定後，基於判決的法安定性要求不得再為爭執，然而如果判決具有重大瑕疵時，為了維護實體上的正當性，得提起再審之訴作為救濟。不過如何情況下可以提起再審之訴，我國民事訴訟法與德日相同，原則上是個別的情況加以具體列舉，本文之目的在於探討各個再審事由間是否具有共通解釋原理外，亦就個別再審事由的適用，參酌我國學說實務與德日學說作一整理與研究，並試者提出本文之看法，以下就各章介紹：
第一章「緒論」，針對研究動機、研究方法與本論文的架構為說明，並且闡釋各個章節間關聯與區分之依據。第二章「再審制度沿革與再審原理」，本章討論的重點為德國、日本與我國再審之訴的演變，以及再審事由背後所隱含之原理。第三章「再審事由機能與再審訴訟標的論」，主要是說明在再審之訴中，再審事由究竟扮演何種的機能，通說認為是作為撤銷事由，然而本文提出看法認為實定法上有採取再審理事由的可能性存在。第四章「絕對再審事由」，主要是針對民事訴訟法第四百九十六條第一項第三款到第六款、第十二款與第四百九十七條後段之事由所延伸的一些爭點為介紹，並且以「瑕疵顯著性」作為解釋方法。第五章「相對再審事由」，首先對於民國五十七年時所增訂的「適用法規顯有錯誤」和「判決理由與主文顯有矛盾」兩款事由提出批評，並且提出解釋上之疑義。其次對於「可罰性行為」作為再審事由所產生之問題點，尤其是與第四百九十六條第二項之關聯性作論述與提出看法，最後則是對於第四百九十六條第一項第十一款、第十三款與第四百九十七條前段的再審事由，在對學說與實務上所探討的爭點為介紹後，提出自己看法與意見。第六章「結論」，則是將前面各章所研究之結果，彙整與歸納後成為最後之總結。

關鍵字

再審事由 ； 再審之訴

並列摘要

When the judgment is made, no more argument is allowed based on the requirement of legal certainty of the judgment. Nevertheless, if the judgment has major flaws, in order to safeguard substantive legitimacy, action for rehearing should be made as remedy. As for under what circumstances can the rehearing be requested, relevant provision of our country’s civil procedure law is the same as that of Germany and Japan - in principle individual cases should be introduced in detail. This article aims to explore whether common interpretation principle exists among various rehearing reasons, also to sort out and study the application of some individual rehearing reasons considering in accordance with our country’s relevant theories, practice and the theories of Germany and Japan, and try to propose the viewpoints in this article. The chapters are introduced as following: Chapter 1 Introduction descriptions of the research motivation, research methods and the thesis structure and explaining the basis for the connection and difference between chapters and sections. Chapter 2 The Evolution of the Rehearing System and Rehearing Principles the focus of this chapter is the rehearing evolution in Germany, Japan and our country and principles hidden in the rehearing reasons. Chapter 3 The Function of the Rehearing Reason and the Theory of Rehearing Litigation Object explains what kind of role the rehearing reason plays in the rehearing. It is generally believed to be the reason for revocation, while this article holds the viewpoint that the possibility of adopting rehearing reason exists in the substantive law. Chapter 4 Absolute Rehearing Reason introduces some argument points extended from the reasons discussed in Clauses 3-6, Clause 12 of Article 1, Section 496 and the second part of Section 497 of the civil procedure law, using “distinctiveness of flaw” as the explanation approach. Chapter 5 Relative Rehearing Reason first criticizes the two reasons “obvious mistake the application of laws and regulations” and “obvious contradiction between the reason of judgment and the text” added in 1968 and puts forward doubt to the interpretation, then expounds and gives opinions regarding issues relating to “punishable behavior” as the rehearing reason, especially the relevance to Article 2 of Section 496, and lastly introduces the argument points explored in theory and in practice relating to the rehearing reason in Clauses 11, 13 of Article 1, Section 496 and the first part of Section 497, and holds forth views and opinions. Chapter 6 Conclusion summarizes research results of the previous chapters.

並列關鍵字

rehearing proceeding ； rehearing action ； rehearing principle

參考文獻

15、駱永家著，民事訴訟法I，1999年修訂九版。

2、三⑩月章，民事訴訟法，弘文堂，1990年2版8刷。

9、姚瑞光著，近年修正民事訴訟法總評，民國九十四年5月版。

3、沈冠伶，《訴訟權保障與民事訴訟》，訴訟權保障與裁判外紛爭處理，元照出版，2006年4月初版。

1、李模，《我國判例制度之商榷－判例不應引為判決基礎》，法令月刊第45卷第9期。