請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8341
標題: | 外國法院裁判之承認─以程序法上公序良俗為中心 The Recognition of Foreign Judgements: Focus on the Procedural Public Policy |
作者: | Yi-Hsun Lin 林易勳 |
指導教授: | 陳瑋佑(Wei-Yu Chen) |
關鍵字: | 外國法院裁判之承認,公序良俗,程序法上公序良俗,程序基本權,送達,法律漏洞, The Recognition of Foreign Judgements,Public Policy,Procedural Public Policy,Procedural Fundamental Right,Service,Legal Loophole, |
出版年 : | 2020 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 外國法院裁判之承認作為涉外紛爭解決之最終階段,我國法院必須審查其是否該當民訴法第402條第1項各款之拒絕承認事由,以判斷其得否於我國發生效力;其中,第2款及第3款分別涉及「程序法上公序良俗」之特別規定及一般規定,向來之學說及實務見解並未充分意識到,當事人程序基本權保障應如何指引程序法上公序良俗之解釋論建構,且亦未依循一定之審查方法進行審理,使得本條無從發揮其機能。因此,本論文先嘗試釐清「外國法院裁判承認法上之公序良俗」所涉之抽象問題,除了在「促進裁判自由流通」之制度目的下,應採取較緩和之審查密度外,其內涵應具體化為「我國法律秩序之基本原則」;而程序法上公序良俗則應與憲法第16條之「訴訟權(程序基本權)」保障相連結,並以當事人得以在「正當程序」中受到「實質且有效之權利救濟」為核心內涵。再者,本論文分別分析上述兩款事由具體適用之問題:在「第2款」保障被告「受通知權」之目的下,應肯認但書之解釋指向於「被告是否知悉外國訴訟之提起而能決定是否及如何應訴」,而引導本款但書「適式性」及「適時性」之解釋,並應於不同情況透過「目的性限縮」或「類推適用」之方式填補「法律漏洞」,以充實受通知權保障之規範意旨。至於在「第3款」保障當事人「程序基本權」之目的下,我國法院於判斷外國法院裁判是否違反程序法上公序良俗時,應依循正確之三階段審查方法:第一,「程序基本權內涵之特定」;第二,「程序基本權侵害之審查」;第三,「當事人救濟義務之確認」。透過前述對於程序法上公序良俗解釋論之妥適建構,應可藉由深化當事人程序基本權保障之方式,鞏固拒絕承認外國法院裁判之正當性基礎,進而在「裁判流通性之促進」與「內國法律秩序基本原則之維護」兩價值間,謀求平衡。 As the final stage of dispute resolution concerning foreign affairs or foreign nationals, the recognition of foreign judgment should be examined by the R.O.C. court to determine whether it has effect in R.O.C., which would depend on if it corresponds to the provisions in Article 402, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Procedure Law. In the Article aforementioned, Subparagraph 2 and Subparagraph 3 are respectively related to the special and general provisions of “procedural public policy”. In both legal theory and legal practice, some opinions are not fully aware of not only how should the protection of the parties’ procedural fundamental rights guide the construction of the legal interpretation of procedural public policy, but also the certain methods of examination of procedural public policy. Therefore, this paper first attempts to clarify the abstract issues concerning “public policy in the law of the recognition of foreign judgements”. Under the purpose of “promotion of the free movement of judgments”, a more alleviated examination density should be adopted, and the concrete content of public policy should be the “fundamental principles of the legal order of R.O.C.”. Besides, the content of procedural public policy should be linked to the protection of the “right of action” in Article 16 of R.O.C. Constitution, which states that the parties’ rights could be substantially and effectively relieved under due process. Furthermore, this paper also analyzes the specific problems of the above two provisions. To protect the defendant's “right to be notified” under the “Subparagraph 2”, the interpretation of the provision should point to “whether the defendant is aware of the filing of a foreign lawsuit and how to defend the lawsuit”. This interpretation will play an important role in the application of “the appropriate form and time” of the provision. As for the purpose of protecting the parties' “procedural fundamental rights” under “Subparagraph 3”, the R.O.C. court should use the correct three-stage examination method when determining whether foreign judgement violates the procedural public policy. The first stage is “the specification of the procedural fundamental right”, the second stage is “the examination of the violation of the procedural fundamental right”, and the third stage is “the confirmation of the parties’ obligation to seek relief”. In conclusion, through the proper interpretation of the procedural public policy, this paper hopes to strike a balance between “the promotion of the free movement of judgments” and “the maintenance of fundamental principles of legal order”. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/8341 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202002192 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
U0001-0108202010170400.pdf | 2.17 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。