關鍵字：集中審理、準備程序、訴答、事證開示、預審會議、爭點整理、爭點簡 化協議、一貫性審查、可信信標準、失權效、顯失公平
ABSTRACT
In 2000, Taiwan amends Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter as New Code) adopting centralism of issue to judge, and preparatory proceeding is amended and becomes procedure of formulation of the issues. Consequently how to formulate issues in preparatory proceeding becomes a topic after New Code enforcement.
Because concentrated trial can promote efficiency of judgment, correctness of written form of judgment, and enhance persuasiveness of justice to the people, hence, how to strengthen judgment, excluding dispensable evidences to investigate is important task in preparatory proceeding. The thesis is according to effective formulation of the issues to expand relative to discuss of issues in preparatory proceeding, and comparative lawbased proceeds explanation and lawmaking. Hoping to assist function of preparatory proceeding to elaborate accomplishes target of concentrated trial.
The thesis totally has five chapters. Chapter 1 is about motive of study and question awareness. Chapter 2 is about how to realize legislative purposes of
concentrated trial in preparatory proceeding in New Code in Taiwan. First, discuss the meaning of concentrated trial in Taiwan, and introduce its features and advantages.
Secondly, discuss controversial debate about preparatory proceeding in New Code.
Next, how to practice formulation of the issues in preparatory proceeding, it can be divided into three parts. The first part is about concretizing of content in pleadings, especially in New Code complaint shall be indicated matters, except subject of the action, and it revises and augments to put down “the transaction or occurrence giving rise to such claim” (see Article 244, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2) that may involve formulation of the issues about supremacy (subject of the action, the demand for judgment for the relief sought),factandevidence. Furthermore, avoid to diverge from claim to proceed unprofitably judgment, when court accept action, it should proceed
to examine coherency or importance regarding plaintiff and defendant of claim. The second part is about the right of party in collecting facts and evidences in preparatory proceeding. New Code is base on impartiality, good faith principle in procedure law, and equal doctrine of party in using action materials, to expand right of party in collecting facts and evidences, revising and augmenting “grant witness to make statements by pleadings” (see Article 305, Paragraph 2 and 3), “broaden the scope about the duty to produce documents” (see Article 344, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5), and “broaden the scope about perpetuation of evidence” (see Article 368, Paragraph 1 in the rear), the thesis will introduce particularly. The third part is about
manipulating sequence and intension of formulation of the issues about supremacy (subject of the action, the demand for judgment for the relief sought),factandevidence.
Moreover, the thesis also will introduce meaning, binding force, and controversial debate about “formulation of the issues” and ”agreement of formulating and
simplifying the issues ”. Finally, the thesis will discuss party’s obligation of Promotion of Process, particularly to explain “manifestly unfair” (see Article 276, Paragraph 1,
Subparagraph 4) of preclusion effect which causes greatestly debate in the academia and court.
Chapter 3 is about system of pretrial procedure in America. First, the thesis will illustrate the cause of pretrial procedure, and next will discuss how to practice formulation of the issues in the pretrial procedure. The thesis will adopt contrast with Chapter 2, and divide into three parts to introduce alike. The first part is about content of pleadings in pleading, in 1957 in Conley v. Gibson, supreme court of the United States establishes “notice pleading” but after in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and in Ashcroft v. Iqbal(2009), it changes precedent, building up a new standard of pleading – “plausibility standard”. For this latest development, judicial opinions tend to
identical, but there are discrepancies between the academia. The second part is about system of discovery. In this part, except that introduce scope, restriction and measures of discovery, lawmaker also aware of importance of EDiscovery, for coping with advancement of technology (especially nowadays companies often store information by computers), since 2006 Federal rules of civil procedure (hereafter as FRCP) proceed amendment, but in practice EDiscovery bring new problems – one is about
costshifting, another is about whether an inadvertent disclosure of electronically stored information treats as waiver of privilege. Although the former, amendment to FRCP 26(b)(2)(B) in 2006, adopts Zubulake v.UBS Warburg which puts forward eight factors to weigh, however it still produces new problems; the latter there are different judicial opinions between courts, and the thesis will also introduce wellknown “Lois Sportswear theory”. In addition, for avoiding bring dispute, before discovery, the party may use “clawback clause” or “quick peek agreement” to resolve it. Finally, the thesis will introduce FRCP 37 which is about failure to make disclosures or to cooperate in discovery and sanctions. The third part is about pretrial conference. Importantly, after pretrial conference judge will issue a pretrial order which controls the course of the action, but preventing manifest injustice the party can request to amend it. How to explain manifest injustice, there are four factors to weigh.
Chapter 4 is about reviewing chapter 2 and chapter 3, analyzing and comparing to differences of pleadings, discovery and preparatory proceeding (or pretrial conference) between Taiwan and America, reviewing advantage and defect, referring to FRCP to explanation and lawmaking of New Code, and try to address my opinion. For example, comparing to interrogatories in FRCP, the thesis advises Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure should stipulate that interrogates to parties directly to facilitate parties can collect facts and evidences which is relevant to any party's claim or defense in advance. However,
avoiding it is misused, Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure could refer to FRCP 26(b)(2)(B), FRCP 26(c) which is about discovery scope and limits and protective orders to set proviso. Moreover, Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure also could adopt interrogatories by lawyers, because there is not only the same reason like interrogatories to parties, but also lawyer’s mission has public welfare to people. By permission of bar association, lawyer designated by party in a legal case can investigate to establishments (ordering them to report or illustrate specific matters), and matters regarding legal case is reviewed by bar association when lawyer apply for it, it don’t worry about that the system would be abused by lawyer. Besides, the thesis advises to refer to FRCP 37(d)(3) regarding party’s failure to serve answers to interrogatories would be sanctioned. For formulation of the issues, the thesis will especially discuss “manifestly unfair” (see Article 276, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 4). Comparing with judicial opinions in Taiwan and America, we may find that our courts regarding explanation of “manifestly unfair”
are rough, if our courts can consider factors which the academia has addressed, it could help specificity of concept of “manifestly unfair”. Finally, the thesis especially introduces the latest FRCP amendment in 2014, it could be reference materials if New Code would be amended in the future.
Chapter 5 is the conclusion, and responds to questions in Chapter 1.
Key words: concentrated trial, preparatory proceeding, pleading, discovery, pretrial conference, formulation of the issue, agreement of formulating and simplifying the issue, plausibility standard, manifestly unfair.
目錄
第一章 緒論……….1
第一節 研究動機………..1
第二節 問題提出………..3
第一項 準備程序之定性問題………..3
第二項 準備程序之事證蒐集問題………..5
第三項 準備程序之爭點整理問題………..7
第四項 準備程序失權效之問題……….11
第五項 準備程序後訴之變更、追加問題……….13
第三節 研究方法與本文架構……….15
第一項 研究方法……….15
第一款 比較法研究……….15
第二款 研究範圍……….16
第二項 本文架構……….17
第二章 我國準備程序………19
第一節 集中審理制度下準備程序之定性……….19
第一項 集中審理之內涵……….19
第一款 集中審理之意義……….19
第二款 集中審理之程序特徵……….22
第三款 集中審理之優點……….22
第二項 準備程序……….24
第一款 準備程序之功能、目的……….24
第二款 準備程序之運作爭議……….25
第一目 獨任法官行準備程序之適用性……….25
第二目 準備程序受命法官之證據調查權……….26
第三目 準備程序得以不公開法庭行之……….29
第四目 受命法官指定期間命當事人為協議之次數…….32
第二節 準備程序之爭點整理實踐……….32
第一項 書狀記載內容之具體化……….32
第一款 起訴狀之記載內容……….33
第二款 準備書狀、答辯狀之記載內容……….34
第二項 訴訟資料蒐集之協力義務……….35
第一款 傳統辯論主義走向協同主義……….35
第二款 準備程序中之事證蒐集……….39
第一目 酌許證人之書狀陳述……….39
一、證人書狀陳述之態樣……….39
二、書狀陳述之效果與制裁……….42
第二目 文書之蒐集與開示……….43
一、文書提出義務範圍之擴大—兼論文書提出義務之一般 化……….43
二、文書特定協助義務………..51
三、違背文書提出義務之制裁………..52
第三目 擴大容許聲請證據保全之範圍……….55
一、證據保全之機能………..55
二、證據保全之類型………..57
三、不遵從證據保全命令之制裁………..61
第三項 準備程序中之爭點確定與簡化協議……….63
第一款 爭點整理程序之機能……….63
第二款 爭點整理程序進行之順序……….64
第一目 有關訴訟標的、訴之聲明之爭點整理………….64
第二目 一貫性審查及重要性審查……….66
一、請求之一貫性審查……….66
二、答辯之重要性審查……….68
第三目 事實上、證據上爭點之整理……….69
第四目 法律上爭點整理……….71
第三款 爭點整理與爭點簡化協議之區別與拘束力………….72
第一目 爭點整理之意義……….72
第二目 爭點簡化協議之意義……….73
第三目 爭點整理與簡化協議之區別……….74
第四目 爭點整理與簡化協議之拘束力……….74
第三節 準備程序中之訴訟促進義務……….77
第一項 促進訴訟義務之概念及法理依據……….77
第二項 失權制裁之合憲性……….79
第三項 準備程序失權制裁於違反訴訟促進義務類型之學說上定 位……….80
第四項 逾時提出攻擊防禦方法之失權制裁及例外情形-「顯失公平」 之探討……….82
第一款 失權制裁之要件……….82
第一目 逾時提出︰未於準備程序提出……….83
第二目 延滯訴訟之概念……….83
第三目 主觀可歸責性……….85
第四目 遲延提出與訴訟延滯之因果關係……….86
第二款 失權制裁之例外-「顯失公平」之探討及在我國實務上 之操作……….86
第一目 學說上對於「顯失公平」之探討……….86
第二目 顯失公平概念於我國實務上之操作……….88
第五項 準備程序後提出攻擊防禦方法之失權制裁 ………91
第一款 失權制裁之理論根據………91
第二款 失權制裁規定之非責問性………92
第三款 準備程序中法官闡明權之行使與失權制裁…………93
第四節 爭點整理與客觀訴之變更追加之調和-以請求之基礎事實同一為 探討中心……….94
第三章 美國預審程序………98
第一節 繼續審理下預審程序之定性……….98
第一項 預審程序之成因……….98
第一款 以連續集中審理的審判為中心……….98
第二款 當事人進行主義之反撲……….98
第三款 陪審制度之必然要求……….99
第二項 預審程序之運作………100
第二節 預審程序爭點整理之實踐………101
第一項 訴答程序………101
第一款 起訴狀之記載內容………103
第二款 答辯狀、反駁狀之記載內容………109
第二項 當事人證據蒐集權-事證開示制度……….112
第一款 事證開示制度之改革—晚近發展出之 Disclosure 制 度………114
第二款 事證開示之範圍與限制………117
第一目 與本案具有關聯性之事項………117
第二目 祕匿特權保護之限制………119
一、律師與委託人間之特權………119
二、不自證己罪原則………121
三、政府機關之祕匿特權………122
四、其他祕匿特權………125
第三目 工作成果豁免原則………126
第四目 專家證人豁免原則………128
一、預期將在審判庭中傳喚之專家證人………128
二、不準備在審判庭中傳喚之專家證人………130
第三款 事證開示之方法………131
第一目 錄取證言………131
第二目 書面查詢（質問書）………133
第三目 請求自認………135
第四目 要求提供文件、物品及勘驗土地………136
第五目 身體或精神狀態檢查………140
第六目 新興型態之電子事證開示之挑戰………141
第四款 違反開示義務之制裁……….150
第三項 爭點之限縮與特定-預審會議………..154
第三節 預審會議後之失權制裁與例外………..158
第四節 預審裁定後訴之變更追加………..162
第四章 我國準備程序與美國預審程序之比較……….166
第一節 書狀內容之比較……….166
第一項 書狀內容之相異點………166
第二項 近期美國訴答書狀發展之探討………168
第三項 我國書狀內容之評釋………177
第二節 事證開示制度之比較………181
第一項 事證開示內容之相異點………181
第一款 證據蒐集制度之比較………182
第二款 秘密保護程序之比較………187
第二項 近期美國事證開示制度之探討………189
第一款 2014 年 FRCP 最新修正草案……….190
第二款 事證開示制度之改革………194
第三項 我國事證開示制度之運作與改革………..199
第三節 準備程序與預審會議之比較………207
第一項 準備程序與預審會議之相異點………207
第二項 我國準備程序之解釋論、運作論及立法論………211
第一款 爭點整理與簡化協議相關問題探討………211
第二款 失權效中「顯失公平」之解釋論………216
第三款 失權制裁手段之多樣化及主體擴大論………224
第四款 爭點整理程序、調查證據程序踐行順序之問題……228
第五章 結論……….230
參考文獻……….247
第一章 緒論
第一節 研究動機
民事訴訟法於 2000 年經過大幅修正1，其修正主要是採行「爭點集中審理主義 與適時提出主義」2，以改正過去「分割審理主義與隨時提出主義」導致審理散漫、
無效率之弊病3。此無疑已揚棄傳統追求客觀真實之訴訟目的觀，而併立足於實體 法上觀點及程序法上觀點，致力於保護當事人之實體利益及程序利益，並維護訴
無效率之弊病3。此無疑已揚棄傳統追求客觀真實之訴訟目的觀，而併立足於實體 法上觀點及程序法上觀點，致力於保護當事人之實體利益及程序利益，並維護訴