現代社會中親屬會議功能之法實證研究

Abstract

親屬會議制度自民國19年民法制定之初就已存在，然而臺灣社會歷經數十年之發展，如今親屬會議制度似乎漸漸不再受到重視，近年來亦多次修法限縮親屬會議之權限，立法理由中屢屢提及親屬會議在現代社會之功能已日漸式微。即使如此，親屬會議至今仍留有數項重要權限。本文以法實證之研究方法，研究分析在現代臺灣社會中，親屬會議制度的運作情形，了解其是否有發揮功能；並且探究聲請人或原告未召開親屬會議，逕依民法第1132條之規定聲請法院處理時，法院會如何認定是否有親屬會議無法召開等情事；並進一步就不同之案件類型分別分析之。 本文發現，現代社會中，絕大多數聲請人或原告皆未召開親屬會議即聲請法院處理，親屬會議運作情形低落。事件進入法院後，法院多僅審視聲請人或原告是否對所有法定親屬會議會員為合法通知，若有通知而召開不成，則寬認親屬會議係無法召開，而由法院處理相關事項；法院並不嚴格檢視親屬會議會員之所以不參與親屬會議是否有正當理由。本文亦經由卡方檢定，證實案件類型與法院對於親屬會議是否有無法召開之情事的認定上係有關聯。亦即，僅在指定遺囑執行人之案件類型，法院有較嚴格認定親屬會議是否無法召開。 基於實證之結果，本文建議提出三點建議：第一，因應親屬會議功能不彰之實務現況，全面將親屬會議制度予以刪除，使現行親屬會議議決之事項均交由法院處理。第二，如對全面刪除之作法有所疑慮，亦得採漸進式之方式，先修正由親屬會議選任遺產管理人之規定（第1177條、第1178條），使利害關係人或檢察官得逕向法院聲請選任遺產管理人；修正遺產管理人變賣遺產須經親屬會議同意之規定（第1179條第2項），改由法院許可；修正扶養方法不能由當事人協議時，改由法院定之（第1120條）；修正口授遺囑須提經親屬會議認定真偽之規定（第1197條），改由法院判定之；修正遺囑執行人怠於執行職務或有其他重大事由時，利害關係人得請求親屬會議改選他人之規定（第1218條），改為得聲請法院改選之。最後，倘若認為仍應全面保留親屬會議現有之權限，不做任何更動，則至少應修改第1131條第1項，留下被繼承人作為本人，刪除未成年人、受監護宣告之人並增加扶養義務人作為本人，蓋實證研究發現，實務上幾乎沒有任何親屬會議相關事件涉及未成年人與受監護宣告人。

The system of family council has existed since the establishment of the Civil Code in 1930. However, over the decades of Taiwan's development, it seems that the family council is gradually losing importance. In recent years, there have been multiple legal amendments to restrict the authority of family council, with legislative reasons repeatedly mentioning the diminishing functionality of family council in modern society. Nevertheless, the family council still retains several significant authority. The study employs an empirical legal study method to analyze the operation of the family council in contemporary Taiwanese society, investigating whether it serves its intended purpose. It also explores situations where the movant or plaintiff bypass the family council to directly apply to the court for disposition in accordance with the provision of Article 1132 of the Civil Code. The study aims to understand how the court determines whether a family council could not be convened under such circumstances. Furthermore, it conducts separate analyses for different types of cases. The study observes that in modern society, the vast majority of movants or plaintiffs often do not convene family council before petitioning the court, indicating a decline in the functioning of family council. Upon entering the court, there is a lenient tendency to acknowledge that family councils cannot be convened, and the court proceeds to handle related matters. This leniency is typically based on whether the movants or plaintiffs has legally notified all statutory family members, with little consideration of whether family members have legitimate reasons for not participating in the family council, except when there are clear reasons such as no statutory relatives. The study further validates through chi-square tests that there is a correlation between the types of cases and the court's determination of the inability to convene the family council. Specifically, in cases involving the designation of an executor of a will, the court tends to have a stricter assessment of whether a family council can be convened. The study suggests that, in order to fully realize the effectiveness of the family council, amendments should be made to the statutory membership qualifications specified in Article 1131. These amendments should align with the prevailing practice, where the majority of cases involve the deceased person. Alternatively, considering the current practical situation where the functionality of family council is limited, there could be a comprehensive removal of the family council system. If there are concerns, cases involving the appointment of a manager for the property of the deceased and the consent to sell the deceased's property, for which the majority of courts do not mind whether a family council has been convened beforehand, can also be progressively excluded, gradually diminishing the authority of family council.