「分割爭點方法（issue-by-issue）」的提出，主要源於傳統選法理論中關於定性（qualification）問題之操作技巧的發展。然而，在大陸法系國家，傳統上對於這種運用「分割爭點方法」造成「分割問題（dépeçage）」的現象，卻是採取敵對的態度。在最高法院九十六年台上字第一八○四號判決、九十七年度台上字第一八三八號兩則判決中，最高法院主張民事事件之主法律關係，常由數個不同之次法律關係組合而成，其中涉外民事法律關係本具有複雜多元之聯繫因素，倘該涉外民事事件係由數個不同之次法律關係組成其主法律關係，若僅適用其中單一之衝突法則以決定準據法，即欠缺具體妥當性。本文嘗試以比較法方法，取材他國司法實務經驗以及分割爭點方法理論，以最高法院此兩則判決為中心，論證判決中所提及之法律適用方法，與「分割爭點方法」間之異同，並就我國法院對於「分割問題」之處理與可能之操作模式，提供個人之意見。 The issue-by-issue method is a skill often adopted by Anglo-American judges who apply the classic theory of Choice of Law rules to foreign-related cases. However, in most continental legal system countries, the court traditionally takes a hostile position to this method because it always raises the question of “dépeçage”. In two recent judgments, the Taiwan Supreme Court held that in some complicated foreign-related cases, the legal relations should have been divided into “main-legal relation” and “sub-legal relations”. The main-legal relation could be constituted by several different sub-legal relations. In considering the issue to maintain justice in the proper case, it is possible to apply different laws to each sub-legal relation, even if it will result in “dépeçage”. Referring to cases of foreign justice, this study tries to compare different ideas about the issue-by-issue method in the field of Conflict of Laws. We hope therefore to provide some useful advice by applying the comparative law method to the Taiwanese court in order to improve the operability of the new method in foreign-related cases.