仲裁期限之進越、仲裁聲明範圍之拘束性、以及仲裁判斷應記載事項之欠缺——臺灣高等法院98 年度重上字第759 號判決之檢討

The Time Limit and Delay in Arbitration Procedure, the Arbitral Award in Excess of the Amount Claimed by the Party, and the Format of Arbitral Award

1998年全面修正之我國仲裁法，依法務部之說明，其草案條法務部於1993年起參考聯合國國際貿易委員會所製作之國際商務仲裁模範法及外國立法例，邀集相關機關團體及學者召開14次研修會議後擬定，以「國際化與自由化」為主要指導原則，「期能符合我國經濟國際化及亞太營運中心之規劃，進而提升我國競爭力」。然而，若仔細檢視？可發現我國仲裁法中存在著許多模範法所無的特殊制度。這些我國仲裁法制之特色，若具有充分合理性，自然像我國法之優點而值得保存，惟若不具充分合理性，則有必要加以檢討改善。本文針對一最近頗具戲劇性之仲裁事例加以探討。該事件凸顯了我國仲裁法制與實務之若干特色：設有固定仲裁期限，除規定仲裁庭須在期限內作成記載完整之仲裁判斷書之外？並規定若逾期則當事人可逕行起訴，使得在我國進行仲裁時？期限之嚴格遵守在實務上具高度重要性；又，法院認為仲裁與訴訟之程序法理不同，仲裁不若訴訟般受到處分權主義之嚴格拘束，於不逾請求總額之前提下仲裁庭可「要五毛給一塊」此外，許可執行程序與撒仲程序像完全割裂之兩個制度。本文擬藉由對本事件之分析，討論這些我國仲裁法制度上之問題，作為修法或法解釋之參考。

Taiwanese Arbitration Law was revised completely in 1998. The Taiwanese government has referred to the UNCTRAL Model Law and other foreign arbitration laws in the law enactment, in order to make Taiwanese arbitration law closer to intemational standard. However, in a closer look, we can find many differences in Taiwanese arbitration law and the Model Law. Some of these differences might be reasonably justified, but some might not. In a recent Taiwan High Court Judgment conceming intemational arbitration between U.S. and Taiwanese companies, some of the features of Taiwanese arbitration law regime become obvious. Such as: there is a fixed time limit for arbitral procedure, and in case of delay, the law provides that the parties can bring an action on the same dispute, which makes it extremely important for arbitrators to obey the time limit. Also, the courts consider that the fundamental principles are different in 1itigation and arbitration so that the arbitrator can grant more money than claimed in individual item， so far as the total amount granted does not exceed the total amount claimed. In addition, the procedure for annulment of arbital awards and the procedure for seeking execution are totally independent. This article analyzes those features and argues that some of them might not be reasonable and need to be addressed in the future amendment to the Arbitration Act.