主參加訴訟之研究—以主參加原因及審理規律為中心

Abstract

主參加訴訟為民事訴訟上第三人訴訟參與制度之一環。依民事訴訟法第54條第1項，第三人提起之主參加訴訟，必須符合「對本訴訟之訴訟標的全部或一部，為自己有所請求」，或「主張因本訴訟之結果，自己之權利將被侵害」之主參加原因，始為合法；於合法提起後，依同條第2項，法院將「準用第56條第1項各款」進行審理。此等規定雖然甫於2003年經過修正，然觀諸修正後之學說及實務見解，不論是主參加原因之判斷標準或準用第56條第1項各款之審理規律，在解釋論上，顯然皆存在許多值得進一步探討與研究的課題。基於此問題意識，本文回溯2003年修正之立法資料，釐清當時的修正背景與立法者的真意，並觀察對於我國主參加訴訟制度影響深遠之日本獨立當事人參加制度，具體分析日本法對我國法的影響以及其間至今仍然存在的差異。以我國法的回顧及日本法的研究為基礎，本文認為，雖然向來對於主參加原因的詮釋多半係出自第三人實體權利保護的觀點，但既然統一解決紛爭向來亦被認為是我國主參加訴訟的制度目的之一，於主參加原因之判斷上即無法忽視此一面向之檢驗。就準用第56條第1項各款之審理規律而言，2003年之修法者意在捨棄合一確定必要之限制，廣開涉及主參加訴訟之情形謀求訴訟資料及程序進行一致之可能性；為兼顧統一解決紛爭及當事人的實體權利等不同面向的考量，本文認為應於本訴訟及主參加訴訟之間，個案判斷是否有準用第56條第1項各款之必要。

Principal intervention constitutes part of the system of involvement of third parties in the legal dispute in civil litigation. Pursuant to Article 54, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a third party filing a principal intervention must satisfy one of the following grounds: either “asserts rights to the whole or a part of any claim of the original action,” or “claiming that the outcome of the original action would infringe its rights.” Only then is the intervention lawful. Once lawfully initiated, under Paragraph 2 of the same article, the court shall apply mutatis mutandis “each subparagraph of Article 56, Paragraph 1” in the course of trial. Although these provisions were only amended in 2003, a review of post-amendment academic discussions and judicial practice shows that, both as to the criteria for determining grounds for principal intervention and as to the procedural rules under subparagraphs of Article 56, Paragraph 1 to be applied mutatis mutandis, there remain numerous issues in interpretation that warrant further examination. In this context, this article retraces the legislative materials of the 2003 amendment, clarifies its historical context and the legislative intent, and considers the Japanese system of Intervention as an Independent Party—which has exerted a profound influence on Taiwan’s principal intervention regime—by analyzing the Japanese law’s impact on Taiwanese law as well as the differences that persist between the two systems. On the basis of this review of Taiwan’s law and the study of Japanese law, this article argues that, although the interpretation of grounds for principal intervention has traditionally been approached from the perspective of protecting the substantive rights of third parties, the objective of resolving disputes in consistency has long been regarded as one of the purposes of Taiwan’s principal intervention system. Hence, this aspect cannot be overlooked in determining the grounds for principal intervention. With respect to the procedural rules under Article 56, Paragraph 1 to be applied mutatis mutandis, the 2003 amendment sought to abandon the restriction of “consistent adjudication” and to broaden the possibility of promoting consistency in both litigation materials and procedure in the circumstances in which principal intervention may be joined. In order to balance the objectives of ensuring consistency and protecting the substantive rights of the parties, this article argues that it is necessary to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the mutatis mutandis application of each subparagraph of Article 56, Paragraph 1 is required between the original action and the principal intervention.