| dc.creator (作者) | 劉明生 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Liu, Ming-Sheng | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2013-12 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 20-Jun-2016 11:00:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 20-Jun-2016 11:00:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 20-Jun-2016 11:00:54 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98036 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 我國民事訴訟第二五四條第一項本文與德國民事訴訟法第二六五條第二項均採取訴訟繫屬中移轉或讓與不影響原訴訟之原則（當事人恆定原則）。然我國民訴法於二○○○年時修正第二五四條之規定，認為僅他造不同意之情形移轉之人或第三人亦得聲請法院許第三人承當訴訟，繼受人無須他造當事人之同意即得提起主參加訴訟。此項修法與當初採取訴訟繫屬中移轉或讓與不影響原訴訟之原則（當事人恆定原則）乃為保護他造當事人利益之間是否有相契合之處。於二○○三年民事訴訟之修法者，增訂第六十七條之一法院得依職權通知與第五○七條之一第三人撤銷訴訟程序之規定，及於二○○○年增訂第二五四條第四項法院應通知繼受人參與訴訟之規定，是否因此等規定之增訂即可使既判力擴張及於訴訟系爭物之善意繼受人，則產生疑問。關於既判力是否擴張及訴訟系爭物之善意繼受人，於我國學說上則有訴訟法既判力擴張說、實體法善意取得說與雙重善意說見解之提出。從比較法之觀點言之，德國民事訴訟法第三二五條第二項明文規定既判力不得擴張及於實體法上善意取得之第三人。於德國學說上則出現訴訟繫屬善意說、實體法善意取得說與雙重善意說之見解，上述學說之見解究以何者較為妥當，則有作更深入研究之必要。本文主要在探討承認當事人恆定原則之目的、訴訟繫屬中訴訟系爭物移轉或權利讓與之法律效果，尤其法定訴訟擔當、重複起訴之禁止、使訴之聲明與實體法狀況相符合之問題、繼受人程序參與之問題，以及確定判決之既判力、執行力是否及於何種情形可擴張及於訴訟繫屬中權利或訴訟系爭物之繼受人，尤其訴訟標的涉及物權請求之訴訟系爭物繼受情形，可否及於實體法善意取得之第三人。本文之目的乃在尋求貫徹當事人恆定原則保護他造當事人利益與兼顧繼受人利益保護之程序運作，並明確化何種情形既判力可擴張及於訴訟系爭物或權利之繼受人。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The principle of the invariability of parties is regulated in Article 254 (1) of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure and Article 265 (2) of German Code of Civil Procedure. No action will be affected by the fact that the right regarding the subject matter of the claim or the fact that the object has been transferred to a third person in a pending suit. Under Article 254 (1) (2), a third person may assume the action for a party or intervene to assert a claim against the parties without the consent of the opposing party. It is doubtful, whether this reform is consistent with the legislative goal of the principle of invariability of parties to protect the opposing party. The legislature regulates the authority of notice of court in Article 67-1 and the third-person opposition proceeding in Article 507-1 in 2003 as well as the duty of court to notice in Article 254 (4) in 2000. It is disputed, whether after these amendments the res judicata of judgment can be extended to the successor in good faith. In regard to this issue, different theories are represented, such as the theory of procedural extension of res judicata, the theory of good faith in the substantive law and the theory of double good faith. Comparative Law, under Article 325 (2) of German Code of Civil Procedure, the res judicata of judgment is not permitted to extend to the successor who can assert the acquisition in good faith in the substantive law. It is disputed how the concept of good faith in Article 325 is interpreted. The aim of the essay is to find out the proceeding in which the interests of opposing party and successor can be protected and to clarify in which situation the res judicata can be extended to the successor of the right regarding the claim or object. | |
| dc.format.extent | 914155 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 法學評論, 135,175-254頁 | |
| dc.relation (關聯) | Chengchi law review | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 既判力; 善意取得; 訴訟標的權利或訴訟系爭物之繼受; 當事人恆定原則; 法院職權通知; 第三人撤銷訴訟 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Res Judicata; Acquisition in Good Faith; Succession of the Right Regarding the Claim or Object; the Principle of Invariability of Parties; Notice of Court; Third-Person Opposition Proceeding | |
| dc.title (題名) | 訴訟系爭物或訴訟標的權利之繼受與既判力主觀效力範圍之擴張 | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
| dc.identifier.doi (DOI) | 10.3966/102398202013120135003 | |
| dc.doi.uri (DOI) | http://dx.doi.org/10.3966%2f102398202013120135003 | |
