共有關係權利行使主體之研究──以實體法與程序法之對應適用為中心

Abstract

共有關係之實體法上權利行使方式，涉及民法第819條第2項、民法第821條、民法第828條、民法第831條等規定之適用，對應於訴訟法上之問題即為當事人適格。故有關當事人適格問題之解決，即應併立於實體法及程序法的觀點而為考量。 就當事人適格之判斷標準，應依原告所提訴之類型為何而定，此不論係於「一對一民事訴訟」或係涉及多數人的「共有關係訴訟」，均同。故於「共有關係訴訟」，全體共有人有無共同訴訟之必要而屬固有必要共同訴訟，必須視紛爭之態樣、原告所提訴之類型為何、系爭訴訟標的法律關係為何、共有人有無所在不明或其拒絕起訴有無正當理由等因素，於系爭訴訟予以論斷。 而就目前最具爭議的「公同共有權利訴訟」之原告適格，尤其是「繼承公同共有債權訴訟」，法院宜從實體法及程序法的觀點，合理限制民事訴訟法第56條之1「強制追加原告」制度的適用，並且在拒絕起訴者充分陳述意見後，審視其有無不適合強制追加成為原告的情形，以調和原告、被告、拒絕起訴者及法院間之利害，降低現行制度下對於拒絕起訴者之權益及訴訟經濟所造成的衝擊。

The way of exercising the Co-Rights is stipulated in Articles 819, 821, 828, and 831 of the Civil Code, and affects the judgment of the standing of parties in the civil procedure. Therefore, the standard of the standing of parties should be based on the perspectives of substantial law and procedural law. The standard of the standing of parties shall depend on the type of litigation. Therefore, in Co-Rights Litigation, whether it belongs to Necessary Common Inherence Legal Action must be judged based on the following factors: the state of the dispute, the type of litigation, the rights claimed by the plaintiff, whether the co-owner is unknown, and whether the person who refuses to join as co-plaintiffs has a justifiable reason. Regarding the currently controversial Creditor’s Right in Common Litigation, the court should reasonably restrict the application of Article 56-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure based on the perspectives of substantial law and procedural law. In addition, after the person who refuses to join as co-plaintiffs states his opinion to the court, the court should review whether he is not suitable to be an involuntary plaintiff, to reduce the impact on his rights and improve the efficiency of litigation.