查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 爭點效之第三人效力--由最高法院八十九年度臺上字第二三○五號及八十九年度臺上字第二○八八號判決出發=Issue-preclusion Effects on Third Parties--Starting from Two Supreme Court Cases |
---|---|
作 者 | 黃國昌; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 16:3 民94.04 |
頁 次 | 頁225-296 |
分類號 | 586.1 |
關鍵詞 | 爭點效; 既判力; 反射效; 訴訟法上誠信原則; 訴訟標的; 程序保障; 正當法律程序; 紛爭解決一次性; 連帶債務; Issue preclusion; Res judicata; Claim preclusion; Estoppel; Cause of action; Due process; Mutuality of estoppel; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 由日本學者新堂幸司參仿美國法「Issue Preclusion」所提出之爭點效理論,經由我國學者駱永家教授之倡導,已漸為我國最高法院所採認。我國學說向來有關爭點效理論之論爭,大多環繞在對該理論本身之贊否及要件的討論上。本文之目的則在處理於我國一般較少議論之爭點效主觀範圍之問題,特別將討論之焦點置於「爭點效之第三人效力」。本文首先由我國最高法院近來之二則判決出發,一方面站在程序保障之觀點,贊成爭點效原則上並無「不利益第三人之效力」,一方面就「爭點效利益第三人效力擴張」之問題,進行深入之檢討。本文介紹長久以來採取爭點效理論之美國法就此問題所採之態度,觀察其如何由傳統上「利、不利均不及於第三人」之相互性原則,逐漸在判例法上發展至「不利雖不及之,但原則上承認爭點效之利益第三人效力」之非相互性原則。本文進而由「公平」、「效率」此二爭點效理論之政策考慮、為判準,分析「是否」以及「在何情形下」應承認爭點效利益第三人效力之擴張,分別就不同之案件類型及規範方式提出檢討。本文並進一步分析「爭點效之利益第三人效力」與「反射效」問之區別,並點出以民法第二七五條為規範依據所存在之問題。本文在結論上原則上贊同我國最高法院將爭點效之效力限定於當事人問之見解,然而主張在特定之例外情形,應肯定爭點效有利益第三人之擴張效力。 |
英文摘要 | The doctrine of issue preclusion under the U.S. law has been introduced and advocated by several famous Japanese and Taiwanese scholars. The Taiwanese Supreme Court has also gradually recognized the applicability of such doctrine in determining the binding effects of civil judgments. However, the scholarly discussions about this doctrine in Taiwan still stay at the level of whether and under what conditions issue prec1usion effects should be recognized. This article purports to explore the more difficult yet profoundly important question of whether issue preclusion should have any effects on persons other than parties to the action. Two recent Supreme Court cases, which were discussed in Section II, touched upon this question but regrettably the dicta in those two cases displayed the Supreme Court's unfamiliarity with the policy considerations underlying the issue prec1usion doctrine. In Section III, this article introduces the development of U.S. law on this issue and examines how the case law shifted from mutuality of estoppel to non-mutuality of estoppel. Section IV revisits the two fundamental policy considerations-fairness and efficiency-underlying the issue preclusion doctrine and further analyzes whether and under what circumstances a third party may benefit from the issue preclusion effects. Section V discusses the difference between the third-party benefiting effects of issue preclusion and the "reflective effect" doctrine advocated by some continental proceduralists. In conclusion, this article argues that a third party should neither be bound by nor benefit from the issue preclusion effects, with certain narrowly defined exceptions. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。