確定判決理由判斷之拘束力──以我國及德國之比較為中心

The Binding Effects of the Grounds of the Final Judgment: Focus on the Comparison between Taiwan and Germany

本文主要探討民事訴訟確定判決理由判斷之拘束力，特別著重從比較德國與我國立法、學說與實務見解之觀點，探討民事訴訟判決理由判斷是否應產生既判力或者爭點效。於文中將詳細分析德國與我國民事訴訟法採取狹隘既判力客觀範圍立法模式之目的與界限。而且，將深入探討德國通說原則上否定判決理由判斷拘束力之見解、德國少數說基於實體法意義關聯性與補償關聯性、內容上保護之必要性與前後兩訴經濟價值之考量而承認判決理由中判斷拘束力之看法，以及德國通說反對判決理由判斷拘束力之理由論據。再者，本文將詳細比較與分析德國與我國民事訴訟於確定判決理由判斷拘束力相關立法上之類似性，並特別提示基於如此狹隘既判力客觀範圍之立法規定，反對判決理由中判斷有拘束力之理由根據。本文將深入分析我國民事訴訟程序是否應承認判決理由主要爭點判斷具有爭點效之拘束力、爭點效拘束力是否有正當化之法規範基礎與法理根據、透過類推適用我國民事訴訟法第400條第1項或第2項之規定而承認爭點效於法學方法論上之疑問、爭點效要件設置之歧異性、爭點效之客觀範圍與主觀範圍劃定明確性之問題。本文之目的在於透過比較德國民事訴訟判決理由中判斷拘束力與我國爭點效拘束力相關之爭議問題，釐清民事訴訟判決理由中判斷應否發生既判力抑或爭點效。

This article mainly discusses the res judicata of the grounds of judgment in civil litigation, particularly through a comparative analysis of German and Taiwanese legislation, theories, and practical opinions. It explores whether the grounds of judgment in civil litigation should produce res judicata or the effects of issues. It analyzes in detail the purpose and limits of the narrow legislative model of res judicata adopted by German and Taiwanese Civil Procedure Law.
Moreover, the article further discusses the German general theory, which principally denies the binding effects of judgment grounds, and the German minority theory, which recognizes the judgment based on the significant and compensatory context of substantive law, the necessity of content protection, and the economic value of the two lawsuits. Additionally, this article compares and analyzes in detail the similarities between German and Taiwanese civil litigation in determining the binding effects of judgment grounds. It particularly highlights that legislative provisions based on such a narrow objective scope of res judicata are opposed to the binding effects of judgment grounds.
This article analyzes in-depth whether the Taiwanese Civil Procedure should recognize the binding effects of the main issues in judgment, whether the binding effects of the issues have a legal normative basis and legal foundation, and whether the requirements and scope of the effects of issues are clear and consistent.