民事訴訟之爭點效與死後認領——新光小公主認領案之素描與簡評

The Theory of Issue Preclusion and the Paternity Suit after the Death of the Father

本文係喧騰一時的「新光小公主請求認領案」之判決簡評。該案於2017年4月最高法院做出廢棄發回之逆轉判決後，2018年10月由台灣高等法院做出駁回原告認領請求之更審判決。本案過程曲折，一審、二審均判准死後認領，然而最高法院「髮夾彎」廢棄發回，其見解有可受公評之處，結果恐也違背一般人對公平正義的認知，並涉及社會對法院之信賴，因而有詳加檢討之必要。本文於檢討後認為，最高法院以及更審法院就「重要爭點」之認識並非正確，本件案例令人遺憾。 This article reviews a recent Formosan(=Taiwanese) court judgment on paternity suit after the death of the father. After the law reform in 2007, Formosan Civil Law now allows the paternity claim after the death of the father. Before 2007, paternity claim after the death of the father can only be brought on the ground that the father had acknowledged the parentage by way of giving maintenance to the child. In a recent case, the child brought paternity suit before the law reform, requesting the court to confirm the paternity. The claim was rejected by the court on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the father has, before his death, provided maintenance to the child. After the law reform in 2007, the child sued again and referred to the new law. The District Court and High Court have affirmed the paternity according to the new law, but the Formosan Supreme Court has overruled on the ground of the so-called “issue preclusion” effect of the previous judgment. This article analyzes the reasoning of the Supreme Court, and concludes that it is wrong.