English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 118658/149719 (79%)
Visitors : 80581905      Online Users : 3304
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158185


    Title: 判例制度廢止後裁判行為之初探─以最高法院 2019、2020年度民事判決為例
    The Study of Judicial Behavior After the Lifting of the Precedent Institution - An Analysis of the Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Litigation in 2019, 2020
    Authors: 許政賢
    Contributors: 法律系
    Keywords: 判例制度;裁判行為;基礎事實;判決先例;區辨
    precedent institution;judicial behavior;basic fact;precedent;distinguish
    Date: 2022-10
    Issue Date: 2025-07-31 15:41:20 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 法院組織法自2019年1月4日修正公布後，施行近百年的判例制度正式廢除。此項司法制度之重大變革，除具有改革之象徵意義外，對於司法裁判行為之實質影響為何，實具有研究上之高度重要性。未來法院在適用判決先例之法律見解時，對於個案基礎事實類同之判斷，顯得異常重要。但在大量實務案例中，如何建立精細區辨案件基礎事實差異之方法，似屬判例制度廢止後，最高法院所需面對之重大挑戰。本計畫擬以最高法院2019、2020年度民事裁判為對象，針對特定裁判適用判決先例原則時，如何區辨案件基礎事實之類同與否，及是否有類型化之空間，加以進一步探究。
    After the amendments of the Court Organic Act were promulgated on January 4, 2019, the precedent institution that has been in effect for nearly a century has been officially abolished. Apart from the symbolic significance of the reform, this tremendous change in the judiciary is of great research significance. In applying the legal opinion of the precedent, the court's distinguishing methods regarding the facts of the cases are more important in the future. However, how to establish the methods of distinguishing the facts of the cases in detail is a major challenge that the Supreme Court must face after the abolition of the precedent institution. This study intends to take the Supreme Court's civil decisions in 2019 and 2020 as the target. When applying the principles of the precedent to a specific decision, how to distinguish the similarity or absence of the basic facts of the cases, and whether there is room for types for further exploration. It’s the main issue of this study.
    Relation: 科技部, MOST109-2410-H004-120-MY2, 109.08-111.07
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML38View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback