德日必要共同訴訟“合一確定”概念的嬗變與啟示

The Evolution and Inspiration of the 'One Judgment' Concept in German and Japanese Necessary Common Litigation

作為訴的主觀合併禁止原則的例外，必要共同訴訟濫觴於日爾曼固有法上的訴訟團體共享訴訟實施權制度。隨著訴訟團體範圍的擴張，被視為一種妨訴抗辯的共同訴訟也受到質疑。以訴訟標的不可分為契機，必要共同訴訟的識別標準變為訴訟標的應合一 確定。當訴訟法與實體法從體系上分離之後，必要共同訴訟的識別標準從實體法轉向訴訟法，從必須共同訴訟轉向避免矛盾判決，即從訴訟標的應合一確定演化為判決之合一確定，同時完成了從法律上合一確定轉向邏輯上合一確定的華麗轉身。借此，必要共同訴訟的類型也隨之從單一走向多元，類似必要的共同訴訟應運而生。

As an exception of the principle of forbidding litigation's subject combination, necessary common litigation origins from Germanic indigenous law, in which lawsuit groups can share the right of initiating litigations. At first, the existence of common litigation could be raised as a demurrer. With the expansion of the range of lawsuit group, such demurrer became questioned. Seeing the impartibility of the object of action, the identification criteria of necessary common litigation changed to be the identity of the object of action. After the separation of procedural law and substantive law, the identification criteria became adjusted by procedural law rather than substantive law. The common litigation was no longer mandatory but only initiated to avoid conflicting judgments. Therefore, the identification criteria transformed from 'one object of action' to 'one judgment', and the purpose of common litigation transfonned from applying 'one law' to applying 'one logic'. Thereby, the category of common litigation is also diversified, and similar necessary litigation comes into being.