民事大法庭裁定選評之四「上訴利益併計抵銷抗辯數額」案

The Fourth Review on the Adjudication of Civil Grand Chambers in the Supreme Court: Case of“Including the Offset Amount into the Calculation of Appealable Interest”

本文以最高法院民事大法庭「110年度台上字第279號提案裁定及提案更正裁定」為核心，探究被告主張抵銷抗辯，經法院審理認抵銷債權不存在之情形，「一、上訴利益是否併計抵銷債權」之爭議。然而，此問題背後更為重要者，毋寧是「二、上訴裁判費用是否併計抵銷債權」之疑義。
針對「一、」之爭議，比較法上，德國法就此並無歧異。現行日本法雖不採「金額限制之上訴」，不生上訴利益併計與否之爭議，但判例及通說均肯認，抵銷抗辯之情形屬「形式不服說之例外」，被告仍具上訴利益。本文認為，在我國實務採取「本案債權存在、抵銷債權亦存在」、「本案債權存在、但抵銷債權不存在」二案型中之抵銷抗辯均生既判力之見解下，因被告無法就抵銷債權再另行起訴，從實質上訴利益之觀點，即得肯認抵銷債權應併入上訴利益之計算。
針對「二、」之問題，德國法曾發生爭議，大法庭採否定說，後經修法改採肯定見解。我國最高法院大法庭作成前述「一、」之提案裁定後，原提案庭復追加此一法律問題，凸顯最高法院亦意識到「二、」方為問題核心。在訴訟費用法制無類似德國法規定之日本，學者認為僅以解釋論難以推導出肯定見解，宜透過修法予以解決。本文認為，於我國現行法，基於裁判費具「司法稅」之性質，以及民事訴訟法尚無德國訴訟費用法相關規定之下，不宜從解釋論逕採肯定說，宜從立法論上以法律明定構成要件，以免爭議，並求明確。

This article centers around“the ruling on the proposal and the correction of the proposal of Tai-Shang-Zi No. 279 (2021)”of Civil Grand Chambers in the Supreme Court. It studies“whether the offset amount shall be included into the calculation of appealable interest (issue No.1)”when the court finds that the defendant’s defenses on offsetting do not exist after adjudication. However, there is a more critical issue behind this question:“whether the offset amount shall be included in the calculation of appeal court fees (issue No. 2).”
From the perspective of comparative law, German law has no dispute regarding“issues No. 1.”In Japan, the current law does not adopt“the policy that restricts appeals by claim amount.”Therefore, there is no controversy on whether the offset amount shall be included in the calculation of appealable interest. However, both court precedents and mainstream doctrines recognize that an offsetting defense constitutes an exception to“the doctrine of appeal based on formalities”and that the defendant still has an appealable interest. Our legal practice recognizes the res judicata of offsetting defenses in situations where“the plaintiff’s right exists, and the defendant’s offsetting right also exists”and where“the plaintiff’s right exists, but the defendant’s offsetting right does not exist.”Based on such a premise, this article argues that from the view of“substantial appealable interest,”because the defendant cannot file a separate lawsuit concerning the offsetting right, it is reasonable to include the offset amount in the calculation of appealable interest.
“Issue No. 2”was once controversial in German law, with the Grand Chambers of Germany adopting a negative view, while later, the laws were amended to adopt a positive view. After our Grand Chambers of the Supreme Court ruled on the former proposal (issue No. 1), the court which proposed it added this question of law, demonstrating that the Supreme Court is aware that“issue No. 2”is the heart of the matter. In Japan, where there is no similar legal system concerning the expense of litigation to German law, scholars consider that it is challenging to derive a positive view through interpretation methods and that it is appropriate to solve the problem by amending the law. This article argues that, under the current law of our country, because court fees have the nature of“judicial tax”and there are no relevant provisions in our Code of Civil Procedure on the expense of litigation like in German law, it is not advisable to adopt a positive view by interpretation. Specifying the constituent elements by legislation is advisable to avoid disputes and pursue clarity.