English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89686/119522 (75%)
Visitors : 23950821      Online Users : 98
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
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96805


    Title: 辯論主義與協同主義之研究 ——以德國法為中心
    Authors: 劉明生
    Liu, Ming-Sheng
    Keywords: 辯論主義;協同主義;法討論;事實討論;突襲性裁判之防止;闡明義務;訴訟促進義務;二○○一年德國民事訴訟改革法
    Party Presentation Principle;Cooperative Principle;Legal Discussion;Factual Discussion;Court’s Elucidative Obligation;Prevention of Surprise Judgment;Obligation of Promotion of Process;Civil Procedure Reform Act of 2001 in Germany
    Date: 2011-08
    Issue Date: 2016-05-20 16:37:55 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 民事訴訟法於財產訴訟事件究應採取辯論主義之審理原則抑或協同主義之審理原則,不論於德國或我國之學說上皆引起甚大之爭論。部分論者認為民事訴訟於財產訴訟事件應採取辯論主義之審理原則,此項基本審理原則雖有若干之缺點,應透過法院之闡明義務與當事人之真實義務補充其不足,古典之辯論主義應有所修正,但仍不能因此放棄辯論主義。部分論者強烈批判辯論主義,認為應直接放棄辯論主義,改採協同主義。辯論主義已非民事訴訟之核心,法院之全面性討論義務,始處於民事訴訟之中心位置。兩者呈現明顯對立之狀況。基此,本文致力於探討關於辯論主義與協同主義之相關學說爭論狀況。為更加正確理解辯論主義與協同主義彼此間之差異性與關聯性,本文之研究,先將辯論主義之意義、根據、內容及其缺點之補充,以及協同主義之意義、根據與內容明確化。以此作為基礎,再更進一步探討協同主義與辯論主義之對立關係。本文乃以研究德國法上關於辯論主義與協同主義之發展為中心,於二○○一年為使訴訟紛爭得於第一審即獲終局之解決,德國大幅度修正民事訴訟法之規定,尤其關於法院之闡明義務與討論義務之規定,如此之修正是否導致德國民事訴訟法已改採協同主義。於二○○○年我國民事訴訟法強調審理集中化之理念,強化法院之闡明義務,如此之修正是否亦彰顯我國民事訴訟法已放棄辯論主義,改採所謂之協同主義。本文擬藉比較德國關於辯論主義與協同主義相關之文獻,並參考國內之立法、學說與實務見解,進行歸納、演繹、分析,期能藉此更加明確化較適合於民事訴訟財產訴訟事件之訴訟資料收集審理原則。
    The essay discusses the important academic issue of whether the party presentation principle or the cooperative principle is to be applied in property lawsuits. Some scholars assert that the party presentation principle should be applied therein and it is necessary to point out the weakness arising from the traditional party presentation principle. It must be modified by means of the court’s elucidative obligation. On the contrary, others criticize that the party presentation principle must be abandoned and the new principle, the cooperative principle, can take its place due to its important status in civil procedure. The duty of the court to engage in a discussion with both parties about legal and factual issues plays a more important role than the party presentation. The essay will at first concentrate on addressing the main issues of the meaning, basis and content of the party presentation principle and the cooperative principle. Furthermore, the oppositional or supplementary relation between them will be analyzed. On the other hand, the Code of German Civil Procedure Rules was amended in 2001 to resolve civil disputes rapidly and ultimately at the first instance. The modification of the court’s elucidative obligation is viewed as the main point of the 2001 revision. Such a modification raises the academic issue of whether the scope of the above duty has been extended, so that the cooperative principle can take the place of the party presentation principle in civil procedure. The Code of Taiwan Civil Procedure was also amended in 2000 to concentrate the trial procedure. It is a question of dispute, if instead of the party presentation principle the cooperative principle has already been adopted in Taiwan civil procedure after this modification.On the whole, the article will compare the differences with respect to the party presentation principle and the cooperative principle between German, Japan und Taiwan civil procedure law and theories. The intention of the essay is to clarify which principle, the party presentation principle or the cooperative principle, is appropriate to be applied in the present property procedure.
    Relation: 法學評論, 122, 1-82
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    122(001-082).pdf934KbAdobe PDF1047View/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
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback