我國小額訴訟制度之研究—以日本法為對照

Abstract

我國小額訴訟制度自西元1999年施行以來，迄今已滿24年。其建置理由係因於小額紛爭之解決，循向來既存之簡易訴訟程序仍嫌繁複，難以達成小額事件之處理程序應簡速化、平民化及大眾化之需求，故為貫徹憲法保障人民財產權、訴訟權之精神，使一般國民就其日常生活所發生之小額給付事件，得依簡便、迅速、經濟之訴訟程序獲致解決，以提升國民生活，參考英、美、韓、澳、新加坡等國立法例，增訂小額訴訟程序。此項制度以本人訴訟為原型，便利一般市民縱未委任律師，亦得憑ㄧ己之力，確定並實現其實體法上之權利。就此而言，小額訴訟程序可謂最接近人民日常生活之訴訟制度。若欲觀察ㄧ國之訴訟制度對人民是否友善，該國小型紛爭之處理程序如何建構為一重要試金石。 我國立法者依民事財產權案件之性質，設計通常訴訟程序、簡易訴訟程序及小額訴訟程序等制度，使人民得依個案之利益大小與事件類型，循最適切之程序制度，謀求紛爭之解決、權利之確定與實現。若訴訟程序之設計不夠簡單易懂，則人民勢必因不懂法律規範，而畏於利用訴訟制度解決紛爭，最終使人民之生活與訴訟制度脫節，國家之民事訴訟資源，亦將受具備法律知識之人民或具相當財力委任律師者所佔據。若訴訟制度之審理期間過於冗長，則人民之小額權利將無法儘速實現，本已微小之實體利益，亦恐因訴訟之進行而消磨殆盡。由此可知，小額訴訟程度之創設，除關乎人民財產權、訴訟權之保障，亦保障人民平等接近訴訟制度之機會，實與憲政國家憲法保障國民基本權之意旨相互呼應。 本論文以日本法制與我國法制為比較，研究與檢討我國小額訴訟制度有何特色。第二章與第三章係以日本制度之研究為主軸。第二章第一節討論日本小額訴訟制度創設之過程與該國小額訴訟之性質，第二節探討該國小額訴訟程序之適用要件與限制，第三節著眼於當事人起訴後至言詞辯論期日前之事前準備程序，第四節則討論日本小額訴訟程序著名之「一期日審理原則」，介紹該國小額訴訟程序與通常訴訟程序爭點整理方法之差異。此外，亦就日本實務貫徹一期日審理原則之方法與證據調查「即時性」之限制為詳細論述。 第三章第一節著眼於紛爭之解決，為使當事人得迅速知悉判決內容，日本小額訴訟亦規定判決原則上須於審理期日宣示，此即謂「即日宣判原則」。為促使債務人任意履行，該國亦規定法院於特定情形下得為「分期、定期給付判決」與「代替和解裁定」，本文就此類判決之理論基礎與適用要件為相關探討。日本有法官研究小額事件和解之促成，本文亦將該內容收錄之，望得予我國實務工作者為參考。第二節聚焦於日本小額訴訟程序上訴第二審之禁止與異議審，探討日本禁止當事人上訴第二審之原因何在，並介紹於當事人聲明異議後，法院之處理程序為何。第三節則介紹日本民事執行法中，就小額債權執行所為之特別規定。 第四章與第五章則以我國法規範為研究重心，原則上第二章與第四章、第三章與第五章可互為對照，比較我國與日本規範之異同。第四章第一節首先探討我國小額訴訟程序之創設過程與背後法理基礎，第二節為小額訴訟程序之適用要件與限制，其中包含一部請求之禁止、訴之變更（追加）與提起反訴之限制所涉學說與實務爭議，皆於本章探討之。第三節討論當事人起訴與通知之相關特別規定。第四節則透過與實務工作者之採訪，歸納我國小額訴訟難以於一次言詞辯論終結之原因何在，並就現行實務之運作提出相關建議。 第五章第一節聚焦於我國小額訴訟之判決。除我國法明定小額訴訟判決得不記載判決理由外，法官更得於法定情形下，不調查證據認定事實而為公平裁判之判決，本文探討此類判決之法理依據，並針對學說之諸多質疑予以回應。我國民訴法尚於第436條之21、第436條之22分別規定「經原告同意免除部分給付之判決」與「依被告意願定加給金額之判決」，此等規定實有鼓勵當事人任意履行，避免進入強制執行程序之意旨，本文亦逐條討論。第二節則將研究重點置於小額訴訟程序之第二審，探討我國小額訴訟程序之第二審結構，其性質為何？以及就當事人為訴之變更（追加）或提起反訴為何一概禁止，限制更新權提出之正當性基礎等，就第二審規範所涉實務與學說爭點，為相關之研究。第六章則歸納全文之總結。

It’s been 24 years since the Small Claim Procedure was launched in 1999. The establish reason to it is “It is still complicated for the small claim dispute. Resulting in failing the need to simplify the process and popularize. In order to thoroughly carry out the idea of guaranteeing people’s property rights, litigation rights and solve the case in an efficient way, the legislations in England, United States, Korea, Australia, Singapore and other national laws are considered to update the Small Claim Procedure.” Based on personal litigation, the system enables citizens to exercise their rights to the substantive law without engaging a lawyer. The Small Claim Procedure can also been viewed as one of the lawsuit that are closest to the daily life of people to some degree. One Japanese scholar has pointed out that a country’s procedure for handling Small Claim is an important touchstone for observing whether the country’s litigation system is friendly to its people. Our regular proceeding, Summary Procedure, Small Claim Procedure was planned based on the characteristic of civil property cases in order to exercise people’s rights with an appropriate system according to substantial interests and case category. When the litigation procedures are not simple enough for people to understand, people can inevitably be afraid to use the litigation system, resulting in people disconnecting with the system and resources can be occupied by people with legal knowledge or people who can comfortably afford lawyers. If the sentencing period takes too long, people’s rights are not going to be realized quickly and the already small benefits may be eroded by the long-lasting procedure. It can been seen that the build of Small Claim is not only protecting people’s property rights and litigation rights but also guaranteed equality among people’s access to the litigation, which echoes the intention of the constitutional law to ensure the basic rights of citizens. Japanese law will be taken as a comparison to study and review our Small Claim system. Chapter 2 and chapter 3 will focus on the study of Japanese system. The first section of chapter 2 will discuss the establishment of Japanese Small Claim and the nature of small claim in Japan. The second section discusses the applicable requirements and restrictions of the Small Claim System in Japan. The third section will be focused on the preparation procedure before the Oral Argument Date. The fourth section is going to discuss on the famous “one date trial principle” in Japan’s Small Claim procedure and introduce differences between Small Claim procedure and the normal issue coordination. The method of implementing the principle of one-day-trial in Japanese practice and the timing limit of Evidence investigation is also discussed. The first section in chapter 3 focused on solving the dispute. In order to enable the parties to understand the judgement quickly, Japan also stipulate that the judgement should be announced on the date of trial, which is called the “promptly adjudicate principle”. To urge the debt to voluntarily performed, Japanese also stipulate that some certain cases can be “payment by installments adjudicate” and “replace reconciliation by adjudicate”. We will discuss on the theoretical basis and applicable requirements of such judgement. We will also include the research on the facilitation of small claim cases to be a reference for our country. The second section discusses the prohibition and objection review in second instance of Japanese small claim case. This section also discusses the reason to objection prohibition and introduce the judgement procedure after motion of objection. The last section will introduce the small provisions on the enforcement of Japan Small Claim procedure. Chapter 4 and chapter 5 will focus on our legal norms. Chapter2 and chapter4, chapter3 and chapter5 can be contrast between ours and Japanese norms. Chapter 4 will first discuss our planning process and jurisprudential basis of Small Claim procedure. The second section discusses the applicable requirements and restrictions of Small Claim procedure including practical controversy of splitting cause of action, amendment of claim and counter-action. The third section will discuss the special provisions of “prosecution and notice of trial”. In the last section, we interviewed the practitioners and concludes the reason why it is difficult to put an end to the discussion to Small Claim procedure of our country and propose suggestions to current operation. Chapter 5 section 1 focus on the judgement of Small Claim in our country. In addition to our country’s law which stipulates that judgement of Small Claims may not be recording the reasons for judgement, the judge can make a fair judgement without investigating the evidence under legal circumstances. We also discuss the legal basis of this kind of judgement and respond to many questions from the scholars. Article 436 (21) and Article 436 (22) stipulate, respectively, that "a judgment on waiver of partial payment by consent of the Plaintiff" and "a judgment on addition of amount by voluntarily consent of the defendant", such provisions actually encourage the parties voluntarily perform and avoid enforcement procedures. These are also discussed in this paper. The second section emphasize on the second instance of Small Claim procedure. We will discuss the structure and nature of our second instance. Also, the reason why the parties are prohibited from changing or filing counterclaims and the justification basis of update right as well as the practice and theory points will be discussed. Chapter 6 summarizes the whole paper.