政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/111229
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50943555      Online Users : 942
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version
    政大典藏 > College of Law > Department of Law > NSC Projects  >  Item 140.119/111229


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111229


    Title: 民事裁判論證理由之研究─以最高法院2011上半年度民事判決為例
    Authors: 許政賢
    Contributors: 法律學系
    Keywords: 論證類型;裁判理由;結果考量;文義解釋;體系解釋;歷史解釋;目的解釋;legal methodology;traditional methods of legal interpretation;the types of the arguments;the decisions of the Supreme Court
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2017-07-17 16:34:26 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 20世紀下半葉以來，不滿傳統法律解釋方法無法因應社會需求的聲音日益普遍，文義、體系、歷史、目的等所謂傳統解釋方法，不僅無法因應新時代的挑戰，甚至有些解釋內容只是披覆傳統方法的外衣，實際上卻有其他考量而不願公開表明。為避免法官以其他表面形式理由掩飾，卻不願明白承認真正的理由，也就是避免形成以理性上無法控管的尋法過程，作成「無節制解釋」，而掩飾個人特定想法的虛假情況，學者曾針對法院裁判理由進行分析研究，發現除上述傳統解釋方法以外，不少裁判係以考量結果的方式作成結論，甚至有研究指出非運用傳統解釋方法的裁判多達百分之五十，此種現象頗值注意。就法院實務見解中，分析裁判理由論證類型的嘗試，因裁判理由內容不一、差異頗大，如何搜尋並確認裁判所運用論證方法，並加以分門別類，實屬規模浩大的工程。為利於有具體成果，本研究參考德國相關理論分析架構，就我國最高法院2011(民國100年)上半年度所作成判決中，過濾、分析其中判決理由的論證類型，以深化對於我國裁判文化的瞭解。藉由本研究的初步分析，預期研究所得將提供未來理論、實務互動的素材，不僅使實務運用獲得更多理論基礎，同時亦使學術理論具有更多應用空間。The problematic and limitation regarding the legal methodology have provoked enthusiastic discussions since the second half of the last century. The discussions based on the assumption that the so called traditional methods of legal interpretation could not provide some pragmatic and reliable tools in dealing with some intractable problems, such as judicial review of the provisions of pre-formulated standard contracts. Taking into account the fact, some legal abstract concepts, such as the principle of good faith or unfair, could not been determined by means of the subsumption, it is no wonder such discussions have not yet come to the end. In this context some researches are conducted in order to analyze the types of the arguments in the court decisions. For establishing a model regarding the analysis of the types of the arguments in the decisions of the Supreme Court this research is trying to introduction of the framework of the arguments which is developed by German researchers. It is the hope of the author this research could be dedicated not only to the better understanding of the realistic process of decision making in court, but also to the construction of a bridge between the judges and the legal scholars who are struggling for a better resolution in some hard cases.
    Relation: 科技部
    102-2410-H-004-111
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[Department of Law] NSC Projects

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    102-2410-H-004-111.pdf1352KbAdobe PDF2463View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback