論訴狀內容變更申請之合理司法應對

Rational Judicial Response to the Motion of Modification on Complaint

原告若在訴訟中提出意欲改變訴狀中列明的“訴訟請求和事實、理由”，法官應予妥善應對。立法與司法解釋相關規定未能給予法官有效指引；實務界的處置未盡一致；相關學術探討受外國概念和理論羈絆。關於應寬待訴的變更、特定情形下不允許訴的變更的理論結論雖可堪接受，但解釋力和說服力不足。對於訴訟具有決定性作用的是原告的訴訟目的。因此，以原告訴訟目的變動程度為依據重新進行類型化整理是認識和解決問題的較好方法。對於絕大多數變更申請應予同意，因為訴訟本應具備對原告訴訟目的變動的一定包容力。對於原告訴訟根本目的發生替換的變更申請則不應同意。決定是否同意變更申請的根本原因在於訴訟法上的價值選擇而非出於訴訟經濟或者平衡雙方利益的考慮。案情陳述和原告訴訟目的是手段與目的的關係。案情陳述根本變化與原告訴訟根本目的替換是外在表徵與內在根據的關係。既然變更申請並非一律會被允許，那麼傳統上認為的“法官可以泛泛允許變更申請”或者“法官可以先同意申請嗣後再了解申請的具體內容”的看法即不能成立。

It's quite common that plaintiffs intend to modify claims, facts or reasons in their complaints, while there is controversy in the judicial practice due to the weakness of legislation and academic research. The core issue of civil litigation is the plaintiffs' objective of sue, which calls for the categorization of modifications as a better approach. Such motions shall be allowed generally for the tolerance within the lawsuit, except when the plaintiffs' modification of objectives is substantial. It's the basic value option of civil procedure law that plays the decisive role in corresponding judicial response, rather than the balance between the interests of parties or the efficiency of litigation.