論參加效之解釋適用－－以民事訴訟法第63條為中心

Abstract

民事訴訟中，存有法律上利害關係之第三人得參加他人間之訴訟，「參加效」即為規範該第三人是否及如何受法院對於當事人所作判決拘束之效力，雖然我國法已有明文規定，惟學說與實務對其成立要件及效力範圍之解釋，歷來仍存有諸多爭議。因此，本論文以民事訴訟法第63條之解釋適用為中心，以訴訟參加與訴訟告知所生之參加效為研究對象，逐一探討參加效之內涵性質、發生要件、主客觀範圍與排除事由。其中，本文將自參加效之規範目的與法理依據出發，檢討其效力是否以被參加人敗訴為前提要件、應採取何種判斷標準劃定客觀範圍之界線、或是主觀範圍中參加人與被參加人以外之人受保護之必要性、以及作為程序保障對應拘束力之體現，第63條但書所設之排除事由如何在體系上彌補保障不足之情事，以貫徹參加效統一解決紛爭之目的與機能。另外，對於訴訟告知制度所生之參加效，其制度目的與法理依據上是否與訴訟參加度有所不同，進而導致在解釋論上基於不同利益考量而存在差異或共通之處。本文一方面回顧我國學說發展並整理實務適用現況，另一方面參考德國法與日本法之討論，嘗試藉由整體角度檢視參加效之規範內容，並進行分析與比較，以期對此制度之解釋適用提供一定程度之參考。

In civil litigation, a third party with a legal interest may intervene in a lawsuit between others. The “effect of intervention” governs whether and how such a party is bound by the court’s judgment. Although this is clearly stated in law, controversies remain regarding its conditions and scope. This thesis focuses on interpreting Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, examining the effects arising from both intervention and litigation notification, and systematically explores the nature, content, validity requirements, its objective and subjective scope, and exclusion grounds of the effect of intervention. The study begins with the normative purposes and legal foundations of the effect of intervention, examining whether its validity depends on the intervened party’s adverse judgment, the criteria for defining its objective scope, the need to protect parties beyond the intervenor and intervened party within the subjective scope, and how the exclusionary grounds in Article 63’s proviso remedy deficiencies in protection. These inquiries aim to clarify how the effect of intervention fulfills its role in promoting unified dispute resolution. Moreover, this study also examines whether the effect arising from litigation notification differs in purpose and legal basis from that of intervention, and how these differences affect interpretation. It on the one hand reviews the development of domestic doctrine and organizes the current state of judicial practice, and on the other hand, refers to discussions in German and Japanese law, attempting to offer a more comprehensive understanding of the regulatory structure of the effect of intervention and to contribute to its interpretation and application.