美國懲罰性賠償金判決之承認與公序良俗之判斷

The Recognition of the U.S. Punitive Damages Judgments and the Application of Public Policy and Morals

我國對美國擁有巨大貿易順差，且隨著商業、經貿往來日漸頻繁，自然衍生相關之法律爭議。其中，美國之懲罰性賠償金制度，其立法模式與我國傳統民法體系迥然有別，其與「損害填補」相異之酌定因素以及鉅額判決數目，均令該國判決於我國之承認與執行上出現極大爭議。最高法院與學說見解互有分歧，持續衝擊我國民法與特別法之既有定位。因此，本文希冀整理我國實務與學說見解，分析二者之論理，以期降低爭議，釐清此一重要議題。
本文首先介紹美國懲罰性賠償金制度之四大功能、立法目的與常見類型，並與我國現有立法制度進行比較，說明其中差異；第二部分則說明「公共秩序與善良風俗」此一不確定法律概念於實務與學說之定義與具體適用方法；第三部分將爬梳我國法院於審查美國懲罰性賠償金判決之歧異見解與爭議，分析當前實務之承認標準與盲點，並比較其他大陸法系國家近期對於美國懲罰性賠償金判決之態度，作為我國實務之參考；最後，本文自國際公約、民法立法目的、公序良俗條款與裁判流通性等觀點，建議法院應從寬承認此類美國懲罰性賠償金判決，並協助實務建構更為細緻、精確之審查基準。

Taiwan has a massive trade surplus with the U.S. Thus, the legal controversies become inevitable along with the frequent exchange of commerce and international trade. Among them, the“Punitive damages”judgments rendered by the U.S. courts have led to problems of recognition and enforcement in Taiwan due to the totally different legislation system, several determining elements contradicting“the principle of indemnity,”and the great sum of compensation passed by the jury. Meanwhile, the disputes over this issue between the Supreme Court and scholars continue challenging the place of civil law and special laws. Hence, this article aims at organizing, analyzing and categorizing the distinct attitudes of judgments and scholars’, in an effort to look into the reasoning bases behind them.
This article will first introduce the four major functions of punitive damages in the U.S., along with the legislation goals and common types in practical terms, followed by comparing the punitive damages in the U.S. with the compensation system of civil law in Taiwan. Next, the article will explain the definition and applications of“public policy and morals”, together with the difference between judgments and scholars’opinions. Third, the article will categorize the relevant and critical judgments in Taiwan so as to disclose the practical perspectives of how the internal public policy and morals are commenced in the recognition and enforcement process. Moreover, the article will demonstrate the blind spots of the Supreme Court and the possible logical flaws in the judgments. Last, from the perspectives of international conventions, legislation goal of civil law, the re-examination of public policy and morals, and the utility of foreign final and binding judgments, this article suggests courts in Taiwan recognize and enforce the“U.S. punitive damages judgments”in a broader way with appropriate application principles. Thereby, a more delicate and precise method of examination can be established for the Supreme Court to resolve this long-standing issue in a practical view.