被告疾病相關因素作為離婚事由之裁判離婚實證研究

Abstract

近年來，偶有耳聞配偶一方因故成為植物人，另一方欲向法院請求裁判離婚，卻遭法院駁回的案例。面對這樣法律與道德相糾葛的兩難困境，法院會如何作成裁判，令人好奇。

本文的研究目的，即在探討「被告疾病相關因素」成為法院審理的離婚事由時，法院會如何作成裁判，以及這樣的實務運作模式是否有不足之處。具體而言，本文係在配偶一方為「廣義身心障礙者」而遭另一方配偶請求裁判離婚，且其「疾病」或「疾病衍生因素」成為訴訟爭點的前提下，圍繞以下三個主題作論述：（1）法院運作實態為何？（2）現行實務運作是否有不足之處？（3）實務運作有何可行的修正方向？

又，在民法第1052條的裁判離婚事由中，應屬民法第1052條第1項第7款、第1項第8款、第2項這三個離婚事由，與被告疾病、被告疾病衍生因素最直接相關，因此本文亦僅探討我國實務對這三個離婚事由的解釋適用情形。

對於上述研究問題，本文選擇以2013年1月1日至2022年12月31日，十年間作成的110件全國地方法院一審判決為研究對象，得出的研究結論包括：1.多數法院判決傾向以民法第1052條第2 項事由准許離婚；2.准許理由多是基於「被告疾病」或「雙方分居」兩個因素；3.少數審理民法第1052條第2項事由的法院判決，似乎仍受傳統婚姻道德觀念影響；4.法院判決對民法第1052條第2項但書「歸責性」的認定、表述方式沒有一致標準；5.民法第1052條第2項但書恐在運作上對原告產生過苛情事；6.民法第1052條第2項但書忽略「被告離婚後是否能維持生活」的考量；7.少數法院判決對上述三個離婚事由間互動關係的理解，恐使原告更難解消婚姻。

最後，本文提出對現行民法第1052條第1項第7款、第1項第8款、第2項的解釋適用建議，和未來的立法設計建議。在民法第1052條第2項但書的解釋適用上，本文建議對於「被告疾病」這類原則上屬於不可抗力的因素，和疾病所衍生的因素，應採取「不可歸責於雙方」的表述方式宜；而在民法第1052條第1項第7款、第1項第8款的解釋適用上，若對這兩款事由的「惡疾」、「精神病」等要件從寬解釋，似可賦予這兩款事由「新生命」，作為貫徹破綻主義、使原告得以請求離婚的另一個途徑。至於未來在立法設計上，本文建議參照德國法，改採「以分居一定期間作為離婚事由，再輔以苛刻條款作調節」的立法模式，如此不但能貫徹破綻主義的精神，亦能使法院在作成裁判時，有考量「被告離婚後是否可以維持生活」等因素的明文依據。

In recent years, there have been occasional cases where one spouse, due to unforeseen circumstances, has entered a vegetative state, and the other spouse seeks a judicial divorce, only to be rejected by the courts. Faced with the dilemma of conflicting legal and moral considerations, it raises curiosity about how the courts would render judgments under such circumstances.

The purpose of this study is to explore how the courts makes decisions when the “defendant’s disease and related factors” become grounds for divorce, and whether such practical situation have shortcomings. Specifically, the study focuses on cases where one spouse is considered a “broadly defined person with physical or mental disabilities,” and his/her “disease” or “disease-derived factors” become the main issue of litigation. The discussion revolves around three main themes: (1) What are the practical situation of the courts’ judgements? (2) Are there shortcomings in the current practical situation? (3) What feasible directions exist for modifying current practical situation?

In the context of Article 1052 of Taiwan Civil Code, there are three divorce grounds, namely Subparagraph 7, Subparagraph 8, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2, Article 1052, that are directly related to the defendant’s disease and related factors. Therefore, this study only explores the interpretation and application of these three divorce grounds by the courts.

To address the aforementioned research questions, this study uses 110 first-instance judgments from various district courts nationwide during the period spanning 2013 to 2022. This study’s findings include: (1) Most court judgements tended to grant divorce based on Paragraph 2, Article 1052; (2) The reasons for approval often stemmed from “defendant's disease” or “separation of the spouses;” (3) Few court judgments seem to still be influenced by traditional moral views on marriage while applying Paragraph 2, Article 1052; (4) The court judgements lacked a consistent standard in determining and expressing the “responsibility” of Paragraph 2, Article 1052; (5) The operation of Paragraph 2, Article 1052 may impose undue hardship on the plaintiff; (6) The operation of Paragraph 2, Article 1052 may overlook the consideration of whether the defendant can sustain life after divorce; (7) Some court judgements' understanding of the interaction between the three divorce grounds may make it more difficult for the plaintiff to dissolve the marriage.

In conclusion, this study proposes recommendations for the interpretations and applications of the current Subparagraph 7, Subparagraphs 8, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2, Article 1052 of Taiwan Civil Code, along with the suggestions for future legislative design. Concerning the interpretation and application of Paragraph 2, Article 1052, the study suggests adopting a wording that acknowledges the “defendant's disease” and disease-derived factors as “not attributable to both parties.” For the interpretation and application of Subparagraph 7 and 8, Paragraph 1, a broader interpretation of the terms “loathsome disease” and “mental disease” may offer a new avenue for plaintiffs to seek divorce, aligning with the spirit of no-fault divorce. As for future legislative design, the study recommends referencing German Civil Code and adopting a legislative model that uses “separation for a certain period” as grounds for divorce, and supplemented by “hardship clause.” This approach not only embodies the spirit of no-fault divorce, but also provides explicit legal basis for courts to consider factors such as "whether the defendant can maintain a livelihood after divorce" when making judgments.