濫用訴訟制度與律師費用負擔──簡評臺灣高等法院臺中分院102 年度上字第162 號判決

Abuse of Procedural System and Attorney Fee － Comments on Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch Civil Judgment Shan Tsu No.162(2013).

我國民事訴訟法僅要求上訴三審須強制律師代理，但原則上一、二審不採強制律師代理主義。因此若有人濫用訴訟制度，按我國司法實務見解，無法律知識之被害人卻須負擔應訴所生律師費用，此顯有不合理之處。本文認為在濫用訴訟之狀況下，應某種程度接受敗訴者負擔律師費用之作法。而此一作法之實現，可透過民法侵權行為相關規定加以實踐。從而本文參照與我國民事訴訟法制大致相同之日本，介紹日本司法實務就此部分之相關見解。最後本文以為現行司法實務見解並非毫無使濫用訴訟制度之敗訴者有負擔律師費用之空間，透過其他解釋方法，仍可達成敗訴者負擔律師費用之目標。

Taiwanese Civil Procedures provides that a litigant should authorized his attorney to take appeal to the Supreme Court, but it's not compulsory for a litigant to assign his attorney in the first and second trial process. If someone abuses civil procedure, according to Taiwanese judiciary opinions, the victim without legal knowledge should afford the defending attorney fee. It seems to make no sense. However, this article considers that the losing party should pay attorney fee if someone files up bad faith litigation. To achieve the loser pays rule, the victim may take torts action to ask wrongdoer to pay attorney fee. Because Taiwanese Civil Procedure is similar to Japan's, this article will introduce Japanese judiciary opinions. Finally, referring to Japan, this article considers that Taiwanese judiciary may achieve loser pays rule by interpretation.