查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Does a Fixed Civil Judgment Rendered in Mainland China and Recognized by a Taiwanese Court have any Impact on Taiwan's Legal System?--Analysis of Taiwan Supreme Court Judgments (96) Tai Shang Tzu No.2531 (2007) and (97) Tai Shang Tzu No.2376 (2008)
- 大陸民事裁判與仲裁判斷經臺灣法院認可之效力
- 經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判及仲裁判斷是否有既判力?--最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號判決、97年度臺上字第2376號判決之分析
- 經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸仲裁判斷是否有既判力?--最高法院97年度臺上字第2258號判決等見解之分析
- 再訪第三人之與有過失:法學方法論的觀點
- 論傳聞證人供述之證據能力--評最高法院實務以類推適用方法肯定傳聞證人供述之證據能力的合憲性
- 論傳聞證人供述之證據能力--評最高法院實務以類推適用方法肯定傳聞證人供述之證據能力的合憲性
- 經認可之大陸判決效力--以最高法院105年度臺上字第704號民事判決為中心
- 關於鄰地通行權的法律漏洞與類推適用--最高法院七十九年度第二次民事會議決議在法學方法論上的分析檢討
- 法律漏洞之補充的方法
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | Does a Fixed Civil Judgment Rendered in Mainland China and Recognized by a Taiwanese Court have any Impact on Taiwan's Legal System?--Analysis of Taiwan Supreme Court Judgments (96) Tai Shang Tzu No.2531 (2007) and (97) Tai Shang Tzu No.2376 (2008)=經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判是否有既判力?--最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號判決、97年度臺上字第2376號判決之分析 |
---|---|
作者 | 伍偉華; Wu, Wei-hua; |
期刊 | National Taiwan University Law Review |
出版日期 | 20110300 |
卷期 | 6:1 2011.03[民100.03] |
頁次 | 頁29-53 |
分類號 | 588.2 |
語文 | eng |
關鍵詞 | 臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例; 公序良俗; 互惠原則; 外國判決之承認與執行; 既判力; 法學方法; 法律漏洞; 類推適用; 司法互助亞; Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area; Public order and good morals; Reciprocity; Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; Res judicata; Claim preclusion; Legal method; Legal loophole; Analogy; Judicial assistance; |
中文摘要 | 經臺灣法院裁定認可確定之大陸民事確定裁判是否有既判力?若依最高法院96年度臺上字第2531號判決及97年度臺上字第2376號判決之見解,則為否定,並無例外,其主要理由是法律並無明文規定,然此二則判決與學者通說及向來實務作法不同。本文認此為臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例立法者之遺漏,而屬法律漏洞,基於同一法律理由,應類推適用民事訴訟法第402條之規定及仲裁法第37條第1項規定,並不一律否定有既判力。又自既判力之本質而言,經大陸法院程序保障後作成之裁判,應有既判力。而自兩岸司法互助之層面而言,如我方率先不承認經裁定認可確定之對岸民事確定裁判有既判力,對岸亦得採相應措施,則相互報復之結果,對兩岸人民權益影響不小,另自賽局理論而言,我方並無拒絕承認既判力以逼迫彼岸先承認我方確定民事裁判具有既判力之必要性,蓋因大陸法制及法院實務,早已承認經認可之我方民事確定裁判具有既判力。 |
英文摘要 | Does a fixed civil judgments rendered in Mainland China, although recognized by Taiwanese courts through a fixed verdict, actually have effect in Taiwan? Taiwan Supreme Court judgment (96) Tai Shang Tzu No.2531 (2007) and (97) Tai Shang Tzu No.2376 (2008) said “no” with no exceptions, due to the absence of explicit expression in the legislation regarding this issue. However, these two judgments do not reflect opinions of legal scholars and actual judicial practice in Taiwan. For example, a legal loophole exists in Article 74 of Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area that complicates the issue. Additionally, it is also necessary to analogize Article 402 of Civil Procedure Code to affirm the final and conclusive effect in certain circumstances. Also, based on the essence and nature of res judicata, where there is procedural protection of due process, there is also res judicata. Furthermore, from viewpoint of judicial assistance and reciprocity, if Taiwan courts deny the final and conclusive effect of all Chinese fixed civil judgments, according to game theory, Mainland China’s courts may take reprisal measures, thus significantly affecting the wellbeing of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。