關 鍵 詞: |
共同訴訟;普通共同訴訟;必要共同訴訟;共有物返還請求;連帶債務;強制原告之追加 |
中文摘要: |
共同訴訟向來為民事訴訟法重要之課題。在德國學說上將共同訴訟區分為普通共同訴訟及必要共同訴訟,並將必要共同訴訟細分為基於實體法上之理由而構成必要共同訴訟及基於訴訟法上之理由而構成必要共同訴訟之情形。反觀我國學說上則將必要共同訴訟區分為固有必要共同訴訟及類似必要共同訴訟,於用語上何者較為妥當。而普通共同訴訟及必要共同訴訟,以及固有必要共同訴訟及類似必要共同訴訟,於實際個案中究應如何區分,其區分之具體標準何在。尤其在共有物返還訴訟之情形,其究屬普通共同訴訟抑或類似必要共同訴訟。於確認共有物所有權存在或不存在訴訟,究屬類似必要訴訟或固有必要共同訴訟之型態。連帶債務人共同被訴之情形,究屬普通共同訴訟抑或類似必要共同訴訟,凡此均有作更進一步研究之必要。除共同訴訟型態之判斷外,本文尚著重共同訴訟效力之探討,尤其我國現行民事訴訟法第 56 條之規定是否有更進一步予以修正之必要。再者,我國民事訴訟法於 2003 年增訂第 56 條之 1「強制追加原告」之規定,其與基於實體法理由而構成必要共同訴訟所欲彰顯之「共同處分原則」及處分權主義之關係如何,其未來修法之方向應為如何,亦成為探討之重點。本文期透過訴訟法與實體法之相互結合,尋求判斷共同訴訟型態之具體判斷標準,並依此具體標準檢視個別不同訴訟事件狀況之共同訴訟型態及其相關之效力。
|
英文關鍵詞: |
Joint Action;Common Joint Action;Necessary Joint Action;Rei Vindicatio;Joint Obligation;Joinder of Involuntary Plaintiff |
英文摘要: |
The intention of the essay is to complete and clarify the aim, requirements, effects and types of the joint action in the civil procedure. The joint action can be divided into the necessary joint action and common joint action. In the German literature necessary joint action is separated according to the different foundation into the necessary joint action on account of the substantive law and because of the procudural law. In contrast, such joint action will be devided into the inherent necessary and similar necessary in Taiwan literature . Which concept is adequate, needs further researchs . The assessment criteria for the types of joint action are still unclear. How to estimate the type of the joint action in the concerte cases, is also doubtful, especially when several or all co-owner bring the rei vindicatio action against the third party for the whole thing , while some co-owner bring the lawsuit for the affirmation of the co-ownership or when several of the debtors of the joint-obligation are jointly sued by the creditor. Moreover, some questions concerning effects of the joint action will be also analyzed in the essay , particularly whether Section 56 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure is a proper regulation. The rule of required plaintiffs has been added in 2003 in Section 56-1 of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure. This amendment raises the following important academic issues, what is the relationship between that provision and the principle of the conjoint disposition in the substantive law as well as the disposition principle in the procedural law and if this regulation is adequate for Taiwan civil procedure. The essay takes the approach of combining the procedural law with the substantive law to find out the assessment criteria for the types of joint action and hereby to judge the pertinent type of the joint action in the concrete cases and its related effect.
|
目 次: |
壹、前言 貳、共同訴訟之目的、要件及型態 一、共同訴訟之目的 二、共同訴訟之要件 三、共同訴訟之型態 (一)普通共同訴訟 (二)必要共同訴訟 四、共同訴訟之效力 (一)普通共同訴訟之效力 (二)必要共同訴訟之效力 參、個別訴訟事件共同訴訟型態之研析 一、共有物返還訴訟 (一)德國學說見解 (二)我國學說見解 (三)本文見解 二、確認共有物所有權存在或不存在訴訟 三、連帶債務人共同被訴 (一)實務見解 (二)學說見解 (三)本文見解 四、連帶債權人共同起訴 五、不可分債權人共同起訴 六、不可分債務人共同被訴 七、可分債務或可分債權人共同訴訟 八、保證人與主債務人共同被訴 肆、我國民事訴訟法第 56 條之 1 之問題 伍、結論
|
相關法條: |
|
相關判解: |
|
相關函釋: |
|
相關論著: |
|