政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/131805
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113822/144841 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51815031      線上人數 : 372
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131805


    題名: 提存法若干法律問題之研究
    The Study of The Lodgement Act and Related Issues and Concerns
    作者: 劉明珠
    Liu, Min-Chu
    貢獻者: 董保城
    劉明珠
    Liu, Min-Chu
    關鍵詞: 非訟事件
    形式審查
    清償提存
    公法關係
    司法行政處分
    Pro forma examination procedure
    deposit liquidation
    non-litigious events
    judicial administrative disposition
    public law
    日期: 2020
    上傳時間: 2020-09-02 12:49:53 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 按提存程序係屬非訟事件，提存所僅得就形式上之程式審查，凡提存人主張之原因事實合於提存法第9條及其施行細則第3條規定審查之範圍，即應准予提存，而關乎實體之原因事實，提存所並無審查權。又清償提存，關於提存原因事實之證明文件，毋庸附具，提存法施行細則第20條第5款定有明文。是以清償提存是否依債務本旨而發生清償效力，及有無實體法律關係存在而涉訟時，應由受訴法院依法審認之，並非於提存時由提存所認定。是以，清償提存是否合乎債務本旨而為提存，此乃實體上之問題，應由提存人自行斟酌，提存所無庸亦無權加以審查，故提存所之受理提存與債務人是否依債務本旨而為清償，為不相同之兩件事（最高法院93年度台上字第1765號判決）。
    非訟事件之抗告法院，由地方法院以合議裁定之，然因提存事件涉及金錢保管及發還，與一般非訟事件不同，宜由直接上級法院審理較為慎重。是提存法第26條明定就提存事件之抗告程序準用民事訴訟法第四編抗告程序之規定，以杜爭議。
    提存究為公法關係或私法關係，攸關實體訴訟之勝、敗（參第五章案例三清償提存之實例）。早期實務界與學界多認「提存」為民法第269條利益第三人契約，本篇第二章即專章釐清提存為公法關係，界定提存之法律性質後，於第三章介紹現行提存法概要。第四章探討行政處分與司法行政處分（提存所處分）。提存所處分乃係法院依法設置之提存所，就其受理關係人聲請事項，依提存法及相關規定（詳第三章提存法概要）所為對外發生法律效果之決定（意思表示），且此決定於關係人之權益有生影響，是為一種行政處分，但這個處分係「法院」於憲法第77條所定審判任務外所為之決定，雖係法院所為，但就功能區分而言，應為「法院」就所轄之行政事務所為之一種行政處分。而此行政處分與「法院」審判任務有一定之關聯性，且有其自有之救濟制度（提存法第24條 、第25條、第26條及細則第17條、第19條），是就提存所處分之救濟係依提存法規定為之，而非提起行政爭訟，此乃合於我國司法實務所發展出之實質的（狹義的）司法行政處分。
    現有提存法及相關規定須適用於態樣萬千之各種具體個案，且囿於提存所形式審查權責，適用下來，自然而生各種窒礙。例第三章所舉受取要件是否成就，得否准予領取？財產管理人聲請領取受取權人即失蹤人之提存物，提存所無權審認是否為失蹤人之有效利用，如何准許？第四章所舉案例二、第五章所舉案例三，提存所如何審認「未依提存之效果行使權利」、「或雖行使權利而已回復原狀」，類此，皆為提存實務所遇具體窒礙（筆者蒐集實務案例彙整於第五章）。目前提存所遇上述窒礙，能為者有一、循行政程序陳請釋示。二、提請法律座談會或庭務會議或研究會討論。釋示或研討結論，固可為提存所處分依據，然終究須依個案法院審判結果處分（詳第六章結論）。
    關於法規適用之窒礙，提存所可以如何解決？筆者於第五章各具體案例下提出個人管見。並將提存所現行可為者，與未來應增修之建議彙整於第六章結論。期能有助於提存實務運作。
    On the basis that deposit procedure is a non-litigious event, the lodgment office can only carry out pro forma examination procedure. When the cause in fact claimed by the depositor is within the scope of Article 9 of the Lodgment Act and Article 3 of its Enforcement Regulations, the deposit should be granted, and the lodgment office is not entitled to examination. With regard to deposit liquidation, documents supporting reasons of deposit are not required to be submitted, which is expressly stated in paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Enforcement Regulations of the Lodgment Act. Within this line of reasoning, questions of whether the deposit liquidation will be in effect and whether a substantive legal relationship is involved in litigation should be reviewed by the appellate court and are not determined by the lodgment office at the time of performance. Therefore, while applying for deposit liquidation, depositor should discrete whether the deposit is in conformity with the tenor of the obligation; the lodgment office neither need nor has a right to review the legal obligation between tenor and the subtantive while processing the application. The performance of deposits application by the lodgment office and whether debtors are paying off the deposits in accordance with the tenor of the obligation are two different matters (No. 1765 judgment issued by the Supreme Judicial Court in 2004).
    The appeals from rulings of non-litigious events shall be decided by the local court in a collegial trial. However, as depositing event involves the custody and return of money, it is different from the regular non-litigious events and should be heard by the immediate superior court with prudence. Pursuant to Article 26 of the Lodgment Act, Part IV Appeals from Rulings of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be used for depositing events to avoid disputes.
    Whether deposit is under the public or private law is related to the victory or defeat of substantive litigation (see examples three of deposit liquidation in Chapter V). Early practitioners and academics recognized deposit as a contract of a third party stated in Article 269 of the Civil Code. Chapter II of this article clarifies the relationship between deposit and the public law. After defining the legal nature of deposit, Chapter III is the introduction of current the Lodgment Act. Administrative sanctions and judicial administrative sanctions, depositary penalty in specific, are discussed in Chapter IV. Its nature is a decision made by the lodgment office, legally established by the court, with regard to the legal effects of its trustees’ declaration, in accordance with the Lodgment Act and related regulations (see details in Chapter IV for the summary of the Lodgment Act). Moreover, this decision affects the rights and interests of stakeholders and is an administrative disposition. Nevertheless, this disposition is a decision made by the court outside of the scope of trial duties set out in Article 77 of the Constitution. Although it is performed by the court, it should be administrative in terms of functional differentiation under the court’s jurisdiction. This administrative disposition has a certain relevance to the trial duties of the court and its own relief system (Articles 24, 25, and 26 of the Lodgment Act and Articles 17 and 19 of the Enforcement Regulation of the Lodgment Act), which the relief of depositary penalty is based on the Lodgment Act rather than the filing of an administrative lawsuit, which is aligned with the substantive (narrowly defined) judicial administrative disposition by our judicial practice.
    The existing Lodgment Act and related regulations shall be applied to a wide variety of specific cases. As the law is limited by a formal review of lodgment office, various kinds of obstacles have emerged in practice (see example two in Chapter IV). Are the requirements mentioned in Chapter III met and the important documents allowed to be collected? When a property manager declares to claim the deposits of an authorized person, the missing one, and when the lodgment office does not have the right to verify whether it is an effective utilization of the missing person, how can this be granted? Moreover, in example case three in Chapter V, how does the lodgment office recognize the exercise without being in accordance with the deposit effect, extinguishment after the performance? These are all specific obstacles encountered in the deposit practice (reference to Chapter V for example cases in practice). At present, the obstacles in deposit practices mentioned previously can be removed by requesting for either interpretation or submission to the administrative procedures, court meetings, or seminars for discussion. Although the conclusion(s) shall be used as the grounds for depositary penalty, it must be executed according to the judicial result on an individual basis (see details in Chapter VI).
    The obstacles encountered in the deposit practice and the potential solutions are elaborated in Chapter V with practical cases as reference. Chapter VI conclude the practical improvements to do under the current Lodgment Act and the recommendations which may contribute to practical operations of deposit performance in the future.
    參考文獻: 司法院第一廳（民80年）。非訟事件法令暨法律問題研究彙編（一）。台北：司法院秘書處。
    司法院民事廳（民97年）。司法院提存法研究修正彙編。臺北：司法院。
    吳庚（民105年）。行政法之理論與實用（增訂14版）。台北：三民書局。
    吳庚、陳淳文（民104年）。憲法理論與政府體制（增訂3版）。台北：吳庚、陳淳文。
    吳庚（民103年）。行政爭訟理論（修訂第7版）。台北：吳庚。
    李建良（民106年）。行政法基本十講（修正第7版）。台北：元照出版社。
    董保城（民100）。行政法講義（第2版）。台北：董保城。
    台灣省政府訴願審議委員會（民85年）。行政處分專題研究。發行人：黃天授。編審委員：黃啓禎。
    司法院民事廳（民92年）。登記提存法律問題研究。台北：司法院民事廳。
    司法院民事廳（民96年）。登記提存法律問題研究。台北：司法院民事廳。
    司法院民事廳（民97年）。登記提存法律問題研究。台北：司法院民事廳。
    司法院民事廳（民98年）。登記提存法律問題研究。台北：司法院民事廳。
    司法院（民80年）。民事法律問題研究彙編第七輯。台北司法週刊社：司法院。
    邱政強、康四評（民84年）。提存法與實務問題研究。司法院83年研究發展項目研究報告，收錄於司法研究年報第15輯中冊。
    孫森焱（民90年）。司法院大法官釋憲50週年紀念論文集「提存之研究－解說司法院釋字第335號解釋。
    陳樹村、李璧君（民86年）。修正現行提存法之研究。司法院八十五年度研究發展項目研究報告，收錄於司法研究年報第十七輯第三篇。
    孫森焱著（民80年）。提存法與民法問題研究，收錄於司法院非訟事件法令暨法律問題彙編（一）－提存事件。
    林錫堯（民100年）。司法院釋字第691號協同意見書。
    葉百修（民99年）。司法院釋字第681號協同意見書。
    馬友敏（民96年）。兩岸清償提存制度之研究，東吳大學研究所碩士論文，台北。
    司法院（民97年）。提存法及相關子法修正條文對照表暨總說明。台北：司法院。
    司法院法學資料檢索系統。109年3月10日，取自：司法院外網（http://www.judicial.gov.tw）。
    梁哲瑋（民105年）。司法院行政處分。105年度第2次行政訴訟實務研討會實錄。
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    行政管理碩士學程
    102921016
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102921016
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202001377
    顯示於類別:[行政管理碩士學程(MEPA)] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    101601.pdf2604KbAdobe PDF253檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋