剩餘財產平均分配有失公平審酌因素之實證研究

Abstract

民國110年修正夫妻剩餘財產分配，亦即，民法第1030條之1第2項的條文修改為「夫妻之一方對於婚姻生活無貢獻或協力，或有其他情事，致平均分配有失公平者，法院得調整或免除其分配額。」並於同條第3項增列了數項法院得用以審酌平均分配是否有失公平的具體客觀事由，如：婚姻存續期間之家事勞動、子女照顧養育、共同生活期間及分居期間之久暫等。為了解民國108年以後剩餘財產分配案件的實務概況，以及觀察此次修法對法院適用民法第1030條之1第2項之結果及剩餘財產分配審酌的因素，本研究針對此議題進行判決之實證研究。 本研究蒐集民國108年1月21日起至民國113年3月19日止，實際審酌民法第1030條之1第2項的204件全國地方法院之第一審判決，作為研究資料，並提出以下三個研究問題：一、法院如何認定夫妻剩餘財產平均分配「顯/有失公平」，審酌要素為何？修法前後是否有所不同？「其他情事」所指涉事項為何？二、修法將「顯失公平」修改為「有失公平」，用語上的差異是否意味著賦予法院更多彈性鬆綁運用該一調整權？三、在幾項常見的審酌因素中，法院如何判斷請求人「有/無貢獻」？審酌因素間的相互影響關係又為何？ 經人工閱讀判決，並進行判決的編碼、標記、敘述性統計以及推論性統計分析後，得出以下觀察結果：首先，剩餘財產分配請求人並未集中於特定性別，傳統上認為妻為家庭中經濟弱勢的想像應被打破；再者，法條用語修正為剩餘財產平均分配「有失公平」後，法院確實相較於過去更傾向發動剩餘財產分配額調整權，門檻較過去須達「顯失公平」時為寬；此外，在審酌因素的採擇上，「經濟上貢獻」為最常被法院提及並且影響法院審酌結果最大的審酌要素，「婚姻存續期間家事勞動」以及「分居期間」亦為影響法院最終決定的兩個重點要素；最後，法院提及各審酌因素的次數多寡，實際上與該審酌因素在法院的判斷過程中是否發揮影響力、具重要性無必然關聯。 綜觀實證結果，本研究建議，在立法論上將現行條文修改為「夫妻之一方對於婚姻生活無貢獻或協力，或有『分居事實』，致平均分配有失公平者，法院得調整或免除其分配額。」同時建議法院於審酌時，除考量「經濟上貢獻」外，亦應提升對於「情感上貢獻」的重視，並鼓勵法院積極地於判決書中，就審酌歷程和參考事實為清楚地記載及論述，以利將來應訴的當事人能有更為明確的預測和參考。

Previous empirical studies have explored the factors courts consider under Article 1030-1, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code in determining whether equal distribution of marital property constitutes "significant unfairness." However, these studies analyzed judgments only up to the end of 2019, leaving cases after 2020 unexplored. Additionally, a key amendment to the provision occurred in 2021 and revised the wording of Article 1030-1, Paragraph 2 to state: "If one spouse has made no contribution or effort toward the marital life, or if other circumstances make equal distribution unfair, the court may adjust or exempt the distribution amount." Paragraph 3 further enumerates specific factors courts may consider, such as household labor during the marriage, childcare, cohabitation duration, and separation length. To address gaps in existing research, this study examines the landscape of marital property distribution cases since 2020 and evaluates the impact of the 2021 amendment on court decisions under Article 1030-1, Paragraph 2. It analyzes 204 district court judgments from Taiwan issued between January 21, 2020, and the present. Based on these data, this study explores three key research questions: How do courts determine whether equal distribution of marital property is "unfair" or "significantly unfair"? What factors are considered? Are there differences before and after the amendment? What do the "other circumstances" mentioned in the statute encompass? Does the change in terminology from "significant unfairness" to "unfairness" imply greater judicial discretion in adjusting distribution amounts? Among commonly cited factors, how do courts evaluate whether the applicant has "contributed"? What are the interactions and relationships between these factors? Using manual review, coding, tagging, descriptive statistics, and inferential analysis, this study yields the following findings: First, the identity of applicants for marital property distribution shows no gender bias, challenging the traditional perception of wives as economically disadvantaged. Second, following the shift from "significant unfairness" to "unfairness," courts are more inclined to exercise their discretion to adjust distribution amounts, lowering the threshold previously required for "significant unfairness." Third, "economic contribution" emerges as the most frequently cited and influential factor in court decisions, while "length of separation" and "household labor during the marriage" also play pivotal roles. Finally, the frequency with which courts cite specific factors does not necessarily correlate with their substantive impact on judicial outcomes. Based on these findings, the study critiques the current legislative framework and judicial practices. It recommends revising the provision as follows: "If one spouse has made no contribution or effort toward the marital life or has experienced a period of separation, such that equal distribution would be unfair, the court may adjust or exempt the distribution amount." Furthermore, it encourages more transparent documentation of deliberative reasoning and referenced facts in judgments. This would enhance predictability and provide clearer guidance for future litigants.