法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論繼承債權之訴訟上請求-評最高法院一○四年第三次民庭決議(一)之固有必要共同訴訟肯定說
編著譯者: 陳瑋佑
出版日期: 2016.06.05
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦法學雜誌第 254 期 /38-61 頁
頁  數: 20 點閱次數: 3000
下載點數: 80 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳瑋佑
關 鍵 詞: 固有必要共同訴訟債權之公同共有法律上不可分債權物上代位原則訴訟擔當
中文摘要: 就公同共有物之處分或其他權利之行使,基於我國民法第八二八條第三項所定之共同處分原則,應由全體公同共有人為之,在訴訟上即構成固有必要共同訴訟。惟民法第八二八條第二項準用同法第八二一條,明文承認共同處分原則之例外,故各公同共有人均得對第三人就公同共有物之全部為本於所有權之請求,在訴訟上即無訴訟共同之必要。然而,有疑義的是:在因繼承而公同共有債權的情形,是否亦得依民法第八三一條準用前揭例外規定?抑或應認此例外規定本質上不適合規範債權之公同共有,而回歸共同處分原則?就此,最高法院一○四年第三次民庭決議(一)否定同法第八二一條於「公同共有債權之權利行使」之準用,而僅於「回復公同共有債權之請求」肯定之,基本上採取固有必要共同訴訟肯定說,是否適妥,甚值研究。為此,本文乃一面討論繼承債權於訴訟上分割請求之可能性,以測定上開決議之射程範圍,一面分析判斷訴訟共同之必要所應考慮之觀點,以評價本決議之說服力。
英文關鍵詞: Necessary Common Inherence Legal ActionCreditor’s Right in CommonDe Jure Indivisible Creditor’s Rightthe Principle of Subrogation on ObjectRepresentative Action
英文摘要: Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 828 of Taiwan Civil Code, the disposition of the thing held in common and the exercise of other rights relating to the same shall be made with the consent of all the owners-in-common. In litigation, this amounts to Necessary Common Inherence Legal Action. Yet, according to the second paragraph of Article 828, the provisions of Article 821 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ownership in common. This recognizes an exception for the principle of the conjoint disposition setout in the third paragraph of Article 828. Since each owner-in-common may exercise the right of ownership against the third party for the whole thing held in common, there is no need to sue or be sued as co-parties. However, the issue is whether such exception can be applied mutatis mutandis to the circumstances where creditors rights are held in common due to succession, or whether the exception is not appropriate for such situations essentially, which shall rather apply the principle of the conjoint disposition. Regarding this issue, the 3rd Resolution of 2015 of Supreme Court affirmed that only when claiming for restoration of the creditors rights in common, the exception could be applied mutatis mutandis. The Taiwan Supreme Court is thus of the opinion that all of the heirs must jointly appear as plaintiffs in such an action. Whether this position is appropriate will be analyzed herein. This article will address the possibility of claiming on creditor’s right from succession separately, and analyze the factors concerning the necessity of joinder of parties to determine whether the resolution makes sense.
目  次: 壹、問題之提出
貳、繼承債權於訴訟上之分割請求
參、繼承債權於訴訟上之單獨請求
肆、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列