法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 消滅時效因於外國法院起訴而中斷-兼評最高法院 105 年度臺上字第 1165 號民事判決(The Extinctive Prescription Is Interrupted by Bringing an Action Before a Foreign Court: Concurrently Comment on the Supreme Court's Civil Judgment 105 Taishangzi No. 1165)
編著譯者: 陳啟垂
出版日期: 2021.06
刊登出處: 台灣/政大法學評論第 165 期 /139-226 頁
頁  數: 57 點閱次數: 701
下載點數: 228 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 陳啟垂
關 鍵 詞: 請求權消滅時效抗辯權起訴外國法院消滅時效中斷確定判決外國判決準據法國際管轄權
中文摘要: 民法第 129 條第 1 項第 3 款規定,消滅時效,因起訴而中斷。此起訴,在一涉外事件(德商 August Storck KG 訴請臺灣耐斯公司給付買賣價金)中,二○一六年最高法院認為不包括在外國起訴,而民法第 131 條規定的裁判亦不包括外國裁判。德、瑞及奧的通說與該最高法院見解相反,本文對德國學說見解作較完整介紹,其幾乎都肯定在外國起訴與裁判,就消滅時效同樣適用國內民法規定,生與在國內起訴及裁判相同效力;僅其所要求條件彼此有差異。
為顧及涉外請求權貫徹的困難、國際司法的互助合作與相互尊重以及國際裁判的協調一致,民法第 129 條第 1 項第 3 款、第 131 條及第 137 條所稱起訴及裁判或判決,應包括於外國起訴及裁判;民法第 137 條第 2 項、第 3 項的確定判決,亦應包括外國法院的確定判決。

英文關鍵詞: ClaimExtinctive PrescriptionLimitationDefenseBringing of a LawsuitForeign CourtInterruption of Extinctive PrescriptionFinal JudgmentForeign JudgmentStatuteApplicable LawInternational Jurisdiction
英文摘要: Para. 1 of art. 129 of the Civil Code (CC) stipulates that extinctive prescription (limitation) is interrupted by any one the following causes: (1) A demand for the satisfaction of the claim; (2)…; (3) An action brought for the satisfaction of the claim. To bring an action in court is one of the causes of interruption of extinctive prescription. Art. 131 of the CC provides: "If a prescription is interrupted by bring an action, and is withdrawn or dismissed as non-conformable to the act by a final judgment, the prescription is deemed not to have been interrupted.'' In addition, Art. 137 of the CC prescribes if a prescription has been interrupted, it recommences from the time when termination of the cause of the interruption. If a prescription has been interrupted by bringing an action, it recommences from the moment when the action is decided by a final judgment on the merits or otherwise terminated. If the claim is ascertained by a final judgment on the merits or a ground of execution having the same effect as a final judgment on the merits, and if the original prescription was less than five years, the prescription recommenced after interruption shall be five years.'' A final judgment on the merits has the effect to make the interrupted extinctive prescription to recommence, and it also has the effect to extend the short extinctive prescription that is less than five years to five years after its recommence.
Regarding the Prescription in para. 1 of art. 129 and the art. 131 of the CC, in the judgment August Storck KG vs NMC International Co. Ltd. 2016 the Supreme Court declared "An action brought for the satisfaction of the claim'' in No. 3 of para. 1 of art, 129 of the CC as only an action brought in domestic courts and "a final judgment'' in art. 131 of the CC as only the judgments of domestic courts, not including an action brought in foreign courts or a judgment of foreign courts. The supreme court denied that an action brought at foreign courts has the effect to break the prescription when the Taiwanese Law is applicable. Obviously, this judicial opinion had taken neither the difficulty to carry out a foreign-related claim nor the mutual cooperation of international jurisdictions and the respect each other into consideration, as well as the coordination of international judgments. In order to prove that the No. 3 para. 1 art. 129, art. 131 and art. 137 of our CC should be interpreted as also applicable to actions brought at foreign courts or judgments of foreign courts, this essay cites and compares the regulations and theories of the German CC, the Swiss Obligations Code and the Austrian Common CC as Model of our Taiwanese CC. On the other hand, the foreign court must have international jurisdiction (not all the requirements of para. 1 art. 402 of the Code Civil Procedure are necessary) to meet the interests of obligors (debtors). Relatively, the final judgment of para. 2 and 3 should be also explanted as applicable to a final judgment of a foreign court and this final judgment of the foreign court should have all the requirements for the recognition of foreign judgment.

目  次: 壹、序言
貳、起訴與確定判決對消滅時效的影響
  一、消滅時效因起訴而中斷或暫停
  (一)消滅時效制度概說
  (二)消滅時效的障礙
  (三)消滅時效因起訴而中斷
  (四)消滅時效因起訴而暫停
  (五)債權人在外國法院起訴
  二、消滅時效因確定判決而重行起算或延長
  (一)外國確定判決的構成要件效力
  (二)德國的實務或學說見解
  (三)瑞士、奧地利的實務或學說見解
  (四)外國確定判決對消滅時效的影響
參、於外國起訴或外國確定判決對以我國法為準據法的消滅時效之效力
  一、案件事實簡介
  二、德商August Storck KG與臺灣耐美公司間訴訟的歷審判決見解
  (一)士林地方法院100年度訴字第763號民事判決
  (二)臺灣高等法院101年度上字第309號民事判決
  (三)最高法院103年度臺上字第1039號民事判決
  (四)臺灣高等法院103年度上更(一)字第68號民事判決
  (五)最高法院105年度臺上字第1165號民事判決
  (六)臺灣高等法院105年度上更(二)字第76號民事判決
  三、歷審判決所涉法律問題的分析
  (一)國際管轄權與地域管轄權
  (二)原告德國法人的權利能力與當事人能力
  (三)當事人間債之關係的準據法
  (四)在外國起訴能否依我國民法規定中斷消滅時效
  (五)外國確定判決之延長消滅時效的效力
  (六)訴訟上抵銷
肆、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列