民事訴訟第三審許可上訴之研究

A Study on the Permission to Third-Instance Appeal of Civil Litigation

本文主要探討民事訴訟第三審許可上訴之目的第三審上訴之目的、立法模式、要件與不許可上訴抗告之救濟程序。民事訴訟第三審上訴除一般人利益之保護外，是否包含保護當事人獲得正確且公平之判決之利益？我國民事訴訟之第三審上訴，不論絕對上訴事由抑或相對上訴理由之情形，上訴所得之利益低於新臺幣150萬元者，一概不得上訴於第三審法院，仍保留過去之第三審數額上訴制。惟從保障當事人第三審上訴權之觀點以及貫徹第三審許可上訴保護一般人利益之觀點言之，是否有繼續存在之必要，本文須作更進一步分析之必要。再者，依臺灣現行民訴法第469條之1之規定，僅在概括違背法令事由之情形，須經第三審法院判斷是否具備第469條之1第2項之許可上訴事由。在當然的違背法令事由之情形，只要其上訴數額超過新臺幣150萬元，即可上訴至第三審，無須經第三審法院再判斷是否具備第469條之1第2項之許可上訴事由。然而，德國民訴法第543條第2項之規定，認為不論係絕對上訴理由或相對上訴理由之情形，均須有從事法之續造、確保裁判之一致性或法律事件具有原則上重要性之情形存在。究以何種立法模式較為妥適，亦成為本文研究之核心重點。
就第三審許可上訴事由而言，何種情形可認為屬於有原則上之重要性？在確保裁判一致性之情形，主要適用在裁判之間產生歧異之情形，何種情形可謂構成裁判上之歧異？再者，是否須有造成同一法院重複再為之危險或由其他法院模仿之危險，始能容許提起第三審上訴？在程序基本權受到侵害之情形，其可符合何種許可上訴之事由？其是否須有造成同一法院重複再為之危險或由其他法院模仿之危險，始能容許第三審上訴？第二審之判決有程序瑕疵之情形，是否須具有原則上重要性、法續造之必要性或有確保裁判一致性？是否所有絕對上訴理由須與程序基本權受侵害作相同之評價，而無須符合有造成同一法院重複再為之危險或由其他法院模仿危險之要件？在相對上訴理由之情形，是否須有造成同一法院重複再為之危險或由其他法院模仿之危險，始能容許提起第三審上訴？凡此均有作深入探討之必要。

This article mainly discusses the purpose of the permission to third-instance appeal of the civil procedure, the purpose of third-instance appeal of civil litigation, the legislative model, the elements and the relief procedure of the disapproval of the appeal. In addition to the protection of the interests of ordinary people, does the third-instance appeal in civil litigation include the interests of protecting the parties to obtain correct and fair judgments? In the third-instance appeal of civil litigation in Taiwan, regardless of the circumstances of the absolute or relative appeal grounds, if the benefit obtained from the appeal is less than NT$1.5 million, the appeal shall not be permitted to the third-instance court, and the past third-instance court will still be retained（Amount appeal system）. However, from the point of view of protecting the party’s third-instance appeal right and implementing the third-instance permission to appeal to protect the interests of ordinary people, whether it is necessary to continue to exist requires further analysis in this article. Furthermore, according to the provisions of Article 469-1 of Taiwan’s current Civil Procedure Law, only in the case of a general violation of the law, the third-instance court must judge whether there is a reason for the permission of the second item of Article 469-1. In the case of natural violations of laws and regulations, as long as the amount of the appeal exceeds NT$1.5 million, the appeal can be made to the third instance, and there is no need for the third instance court to judge whether it has the permission reasons in Article 469-1. However, Article 543 of the German Code of Civil Procedure holds that no matter whether it is an absolute ground of appeal or a relative ground of appeal, there must be situations in which the continuation of the law is practiced, the consistency of judgment is ensured, or the legal matter is of principle importance. What kind of legislative model is more appropriate has also become the core focus of this study.