English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 112704/143671 (78%)
Visitors : 49772233      Online Users : 724
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


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153771


    Title: 確定判決理由判斷之拘束力──以我國及德國之比較為中心
    The Binding Effects of the Grounds of the Final Judgment: Focus on the Comparison between Taiwan and Germany
    Authors: 劉明生
    Liu, Ming-Sheng
    Contributors: 政大法學評論
    Keywords: 既判力;爭點效;判決理由判斷拘束力;實體法意義與補償關聯性
    Res Judicata;Effect of Issues;Binding Effects of Judgment Grounds;Significant and Compensatory Context of the Substantive Law
    Date: 2024-06
    Issue Date: 2024-09-12 14:27:01 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文主要探討民事訴訟確定判決理由判斷之拘束力，特別著重從比較德國與我國立法、學說與實務見解之觀點，探討民事訴訟判決理由判斷是否應產生既判力或者爭點效。於文中將詳細分析德國與我國民事訴訟法採取狹隘既判力客觀範圍立法模式之目的與界限。而且，將深入探討德國通說原則上否定判決理由判斷拘束力之見解、德國少數說基於實體法意義關聯性與補償關聯性、內容上保護之必要性與前後兩訴經濟價值之考量而承認判決理由中判斷拘束力之看法，以及德國通說反對判決理由判斷拘束力之理由論據。再者，本文將詳細比較與分析德國與我國民事訴訟於確定判決理由判斷拘束力相關立法上之類似性，並特別提示基於如此狹隘既判力客觀範圍之立法規定，反對判決理由中判斷有拘束力之理由根據。本文將深入分析我國民事訴訟程序是否應承認判決理由主要爭點判斷具有爭點效之拘束力、爭點效拘束力是否有正當化之法規範基礎與法理根據、透過類推適用我國民事訴訟法第400條第1項或第2項之規定而承認爭點效於法學方法論上之疑問、爭點效要件設置之歧異性、爭點效之客觀範圍與主觀範圍劃定明確性之問題。本文之目的在於透過比較德國民事訴訟判決理由中判斷拘束力與我國爭點效拘束力相關之爭議問題，釐清民事訴訟判決理由中判斷應否發生既判力抑或爭點效。
    This article mainly discusses the res judicata of the grounds of judgment in civil litigation, particularly through a comparative analysis of German and Taiwanese legislation, theories, and practical opinions. It explores whether the grounds of judgment in civil litigation should produce res judicata or the effects of issues. It analyzes in detail the purpose and limits of the narrow legislative model of res judicata adopted by German and Taiwanese Civil Procedure Law. Moreover, the article further discusses the German general theory, which principally denies the binding effects of judgment grounds, and the German minority theory, which recognizes the judgment based on the significant and compensatory context of substantive law, the necessity of content protection, and the economic value of the two lawsuits. Additionally, this article compares and analyzes in detail the similarities between German and Taiwanese civil litigation in determining the binding effects of judgment grounds. It particularly highlights that legislative provisions based on such a narrow objective scope of res judicata are opposed to the binding effects of judgment grounds. This article analyzes in-depth whether the Taiwanese Civil Procedure should recognize the binding effects of the main issues in judgment, whether the binding effects of the issues have a legal normative basis and legal foundation, and whether the requirements and scope of the effects of issues are clear and consistent.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 177, 1-84
    Data Type: article
    DOI 連結: https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202024060177001
    DOI: 10.53106/102398202024060177001
    Appears in Collections:[政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文
    [法學院] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    177-1.pdf2522KbAdobe PDF22View/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