2018年民事程序法發展回顧：民事訴訟之程序保障及爭點簡化協議

Developments in the Law in 2018: The Procedural Protection and The Agreement of Formulating and Simplifying the Issue in Civil Procedure

10.6199/NTULJ.201911_48(SP).0007

許士宦(Shu-Huan Shyuu)

武器平等原則 ； 程序權保障 ； 突襲性裁判防止 ； 平衡追求實體利益及程序利益 ； 程序選擇權 ； principle of equality of arms ； protection of procedural rights ； preventing surprising judgments ； pursuing the balance of substantial and procedural interests ； right of procedural options

臺大法學論叢

48卷S期（2019 / 11 / 01）

1623 - 1673

繁體中文

2018年最高法院所作成之裁判，關於舉證責任之分配，係依各事件類型之不同，分別為證明度降低、課予事案解明義務或轉換舉證責任，而調整當事人間舉證責任分配，以實現公平正義；關於第三人之程序保障，則為彌補於訴訟有法律上利害關係之第三人之事前的程序保障不足，允許其提起第三人撤銷訴訟，謀求特別救濟，而補充性賦予事後的程序保障。再者，歷年最高法院有關爭點簡化協議之裁判，為保護當事人之實體利益及程序利益，於當事人兩造基於程序處分權成立爭點簡化協議之情形，分別依其不同內容之協議類型，判定其應有拘束力之具體內涵，以貫徹當事人合意之程序上效力。此等裁判，已充分認明民訴法於2000年及2003年之修法旨趣，而將當事人間公平、程序權保障之要求及程序選擇權之法理落實於審判實務，實踐司法上正義。

Among the judgments that made by Supreme Court in 2018, there are three types of the judgments worth paying significant attention. The first is about the distribution of the burden of proof. According to the types of cases, the distribution of the burden of proof would be adjusted in different ways, such as the reduction of the standard of proof, the duty of the other party to provide information, and the exchange of the burden of proof. The adjustment of the burden of proof among the parties is able to achieve fairness and justice. The second is regarding the procedural protection of third parties. To make up for the deficiency of the beforehand procedural protection that the third parties who are legally interested in an action should be given, the third parties are allowed to initiate the third-party opposition proceedings which are the complementary post-procedural protection to seek special remedies. The last is concerning the agreement of formulating and simplifying the issue. Over the years, the judgments made by Supreme Court with regard to the agreement of formulating and simplifying the issue, focus on how to protect substantial interests and procedural interests. In the circumstances that the parties reach an agreement of formulating and simplifying the issue based on the procedural disposition, the specific binding force of the agreement should be determined in accordance with the several types of the agreements with different contents. This process can implement the procedural validity of the agreement between two parties. To sum up, the judgments that made by Supreme Court in 2018 show that the legislative purposes of the Civil Procedure Law in 2000 and 2003 have been completely recognized, and the legal principles concerned with fairness between the parties, the procedural rights protection and the right of procedural options have been implemented in trial practice to achieve judicial justice.

1. 許士宦(2016)。2015年民事程序法發展回顧：民事及家事裁判之新發展。臺大法學論叢，45(特刊)，1582-1593。
   連結：
2. 最高法院98年度台上字第391號民事判決。
3. 司法院（編）(2003).民事訴訟法、民事訴訟法施行法部分條文對照表暨總說明.臺北:自刊.
4. 司法院（編）(2000).民事訴訟法部分條文對照表暨總說明.臺北:自刊.
5. 邱聯恭(2001).爭點整理方法論.臺北:自刊.
6. 邱聯恭(2019)。邱聯恭（2019），在民事訴訟法研究會第142次研討會所提書面意見。
7. 邱聯恭(2017).口述民事訴訟法講義（三）.臺北:自刊.
8. 許士宦(2010).訴訟參與與判決效力.臺北:新學林.
9. 許士宦(2012)。不當得利之類型與無法律上原因之舉證。爭點整理與舉證責任，臺北:
10. 許士宦(2015)。醫療責任訴訟之舉證責任。月旦法學雜誌，246，35-45。
11. 許士宦(2011).訴訟理論與審判實務.臺北:元照.
12. 許士宦(2009).集中審理與審理原則.臺北:新學林.
13. 許士宦(2012)。不當得利返還訴訟中無法律上原因事實之舉證責任分配。爭點整理與舉證責任，臺北:
14. 許士宦(2019).口述講義民事訴訟法（下）.臺北:新學林.

1. (2020)。法律外專家參與訴訟之新動向－以專業委員制度為中心－民事訴訟法研究會第一百四十六次研討紀錄。法學叢刊，65(4)，117-190。
2. (2024)。比較法作為雙重因果推理—以修正民事訴訟法影響和解率的實證研究為例。中研院法學期刊，34，81-152。