婚生否認之訴與確認親子關係存否之訴－－最高法院104年度台上字第138 號判決評釋

The Action for Disavowal of Legitimacy and The Paternity Action: After Qing-Chong Su v. Qing-Bin Su (the No.138 Judgement (2015) of the Supreme Court)

為儘速確定親子關係，追求身分關係安定與家族生活和諧，我國民法親屬編設有婚生推定制度，以資推定子女生父，進而適用親子法規範劃定權利義務關係；同時，為因應推定生父與子女間並無血緣連結之情形，並設有婚生否認制度，且原告適格、起訴原因及起訴期間均有限制。然而，民國90年代前半，最高法院出現數則判決，試圖利用確認親子關係存否之訴予以替代，以謀求個案正義。隨著釋字587號解釋作成、民法修正，允許子女提起否認生父之訴，各該婚生否認訴訟之起訴期間亦延長為兩年。其後自下級審法院開始，司法實務又回歸舊有判例之意旨，不再允許以確認親子關係存否之訴挑戰受到婚生推定制度保障的親子關係，最高法院104年度台上字第138號判決則是正面肯認此一趨勢，並欲平息90 年代以來的爭論。本文並就此與德、日法制相比較，發現我國法與之均有不同。在立法論上，分析我國學說見解與外國法制後，本文認為應承認於法律上之父與子女並無共營家庭生活之情形下，血緣上生父得提起婚生否認之訴；並建立確認「事實上」生父制度，在不更動法律上親子關係的前提下，運用訴訟制度確定真實血緣；同時並應限制繼承人之否認訴權，以不違背法律上之父之意志為要件，始允許提起。

In The Civil Code of R.O.C., the legal frameworkof the presumption of legitimacy of child has been long well-framed, with the only exception of the action for disavowal of legitimacy under sec.2, art.1063 of The Civil Code and art.63,64 of Domesticity Law, which is with quite restricted qualifications. However, in the early 2000s, The Supreme Court affirmed the several judgements confirming inexistence of the parent-child relationships in cases where the legitimacy of the child had been presumed under The Civil Code. After The Judicial Yuan Interpretation NO.587 and the 2007 revision of The Civil Code loosening the restriction on the action for disavowal of legitimacy, the lower courts, and before long, The Supreme Court turned backo n the restrictive view they've taken before, with The Supreme Court decision of Qing-Chong Su v. Qing-Bin Su (the No. 138 Judgement(2015) of The Supreme Court) marking the end of reflection of the past decade. On the basis of the status quo, The comparison is also made between the Taiwanese system of the presumption of legitimacy of child with the German and Japanese ones, with some suggestions on revision to the present system.