法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
民事訴訟法第 469 條第 6 款與第 477 條之 1 之適用-方法論與實務運作之詮釋(On the Application of the Sixth Subparagraph of Article 469 and Article 477-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure—An Interpretation Based on the Methodology and Practice)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 許政賢
出版日期: 2024.02
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦法學雜誌第 345 期/41-69 頁
頁  數: 30 點閱次數: 593
下載點數: 120 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 許政賢
關 鍵 詞: 第三審上訴違背法令上訴許可制判決不備理由統一法律見解
中文摘要: 最高法院為終審法院,非以原判決違背法令為理由,不得提起第三審上訴。民事訴訟法第 469 條列舉 6 種當然違背法令之事由,其中第 6 款所謂「判決不備理由」,實務上運用頗為廣泛,但其內涵仍有疑義;同時,同法另有第 477 條之 1 規定,而其與上述條款之間在適用上亦引發不少爭議。本文針對上述問題,除介紹實務運作現況以外,更基於方法論上之解釋方法,就有待商榷之處加以闡析,以期貫徹第三審上訴制度修法之目的,提供未來妥適運用相關條文之參考。
英文關鍵詞: Appeal System of the Court of Third InstanceIn Contravention of the Laws and RegulationsPermission of An AppealJudgment Does Not Provide ReasonsCoherence of Decisions
英文摘要: The Supreme Court is the court of final appeal and no appeal may be taken to the court of third instance except on the ground that the original judgment is in contravention of the laws and regulations. Article 469 of the Code of Civil Procedure lists six types of reasons that shall be deemed to be in contravention of the laws and regulations. Subparagraph 6 of which is called “the judgment does not provide reasons” is widely used in practice, but its connotation is still doubtful. At the same time, there is another Article 477-1 of the same Code and its application with the above subparagraph has also caused many disputes. In response to the above issues, this article not only introduces the current status of practice, but also analyzes the issues that need to be discussed based on methodological interpretation methods, in order to implement the purpose of amending the appeal system of the court of third instance and provide guidance on the appropriate interpretation of relevant provisions in the future.
目  次: 壹、問題提出
貳、第 469 條第 6 款與相關法條之歷史軌跡
參、方法論層面之法律適用
肆、第 469 條第 6 款與第 477 條之 1 適用上之爭議
伍、實務現況與運作建議
陸、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
許政賢,民事訴訟法第 469 條第 6 款與第 477 條之 1 之適用-方法論與實務運作之詮釋,月旦法學雜誌,第 345 期,41-69 頁,2024年02月。
返回功能列