辯論主義與協同主義之研究 ——以德國法為中心

Abstract

民事訴訟法於財產訴訟事件究應採取辯論主義之審理原則抑或協同主義之審理原則，不論於德國或我國之學說上皆引起甚大之爭論。部分論者認為民事訴訟於財產訴訟事件應採取辯論主義之審理原則，此項基本審理原則雖有若干之缺點，應透過法院之闡明義務與當事人之真實義務補充其不足，古典之辯論主義應有所修正，但仍不能因此放棄辯論主義。部分論者強烈批判辯論主義，認為應直接放棄辯論主義，改採協同主義。辯論主義已非民事訴訟之核心，法院之全面性討論義務，始處於民事訴訟之中心位置。兩者呈現明顯對立之狀況。基此，本文致力於探討關於辯論主義與協同主義之相關學說爭論狀況。為更加正確理解辯論主義與協同主義彼此間之差異性與關聯性，本文之研究，先將辯論主義之意義、根據、內容及其缺點之補充，以及協同主義之意義、根據與內容明確化。以此作為基礎，再更進一步探討協同主義與辯論主義之對立關係。本文乃以研究德國法上關於辯論主義與協同主義之發展為中心，於二○○一年為使訴訟紛爭得於第一審即獲終局之解決，德國大幅度修正民事訴訟法之規定，尤其關於法院之闡明義務與討論義務之規定，如此之修正是否導致德國民事訴訟法已改採協同主義。於二○○○年我國民事訴訟法強調審理集中化之理念，強化法院之闡明義務，如此之修正是否亦彰顯我國民事訴訟法已放棄辯論主義，改採所謂之協同主義。本文擬藉比較德國關於辯論主義與協同主義相關之文獻，並參考國內之立法、學說與實務見解，進行歸納、演繹、分析，期能藉此更加明確化較適合於民事訴訟財產訴訟事件之訴訟資料收集審理原則。

The essay discusses the important academic issue of whether the party presentation principle or the cooperative principle is to be applied in property lawsuits. Some scholars assert that the party presentation principle should be applied therein and it is necessary to point out the weakness arising from the traditional party presentation principle. It must be modified by means of the court’s elucidative obligation. On the contrary, others criticize that the party presentation principle must be abandoned and the new principle, the cooperative principle, can take its place due to its important status in civil procedure. The duty of the court to engage in a discussion with both parties about legal and factual issues plays a more important role than the party presentation. The essay will at first concentrate on addressing the main issues of the meaning, basis and content of the party presentation principle and the cooperative principle. Furthermore, the oppositional or supplementary relation between them will be analyzed. On the other hand, the Code of German Civil Procedure Rules was amended in 2001 to resolve civil disputes rapidly and ultimately at the first instance. The modification of the court’s elucidative obligation is viewed as the main point of the 2001 revision. Such a modification raises the academic issue of whether the scope of the above duty has been extended, so that the cooperative principle can take the place of the party presentation principle in civil procedure. The Code of Taiwan Civil Procedure was also amended in 2000 to concentrate the trial procedure. It is a question of dispute, if instead of the party presentation principle the cooperative principle has already been adopted in Taiwan civil procedure after this modification.On the whole, the article will compare the differences with respect to the party presentation principle and the cooperative principle between German, Japan und Taiwan civil procedure law and theories. The intention of the essay is to clarify which principle, the party presentation principle or the cooperative principle, is appropriate to be applied in the present property procedure.