| 英文摘要 |
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. |
