The Reflective Effect-From the Perspectives of Procedural Law and Substantive Law

「反射效」作為民事確定判決的效力理論，係由德國學者所提出，並為日本學說所繼受。而於我國，學說及實務二者就反射效的運用所持態度不同，前者多積極承認之，後者則少見相關之裁判。為了釐清反射效之內涵、目的，以評估該理論繼受之妥適性，併提供實務審理一定方向及建議，本文乃從訴訟法兼實體法的觀點，檢視反射效肯定說、否定說及既判力擴張說等各說之論理構成及其達成諸基本要求平衡兼顧之滿足程度，以及各說主張判決效擴張所具必要性、正當性根據的有無，就牽涉判決效主觀範圍之反射效論，圍繞著「反射效為何？」、「為何承認反射效？」、「應否承認反射效？」等提問，進行深入探討，期能助益於判決效論研究之拓寬、深化。 本文之射程，基本上雖以前開三項提問之探究為距，但是，關於判決效之主觀範圍，我國立法者於2003年為平衡兼顧統一解決紛爭及程序保障等二要求，於民事訴訟法中增設事前及事後程序保障之配套制度。因此，有關判決效主觀範圍之反射效的研究上，新法所設程序保障制度之解釋、運用，不應為我國從事反射效之研究者所忽視。並且，由德日及我國之理論回顧與分析檢討後，本文兼顧訴訟法及實體法二元觀點，提出「從屬關係、牽連關係之判決效擴張」，配合新法所設事前、事後程序保障制度，以兼顧實體法及訴訟法上之基本要求。是故，本文之射程距離亦將及於「我國法下判決效主觀範圍應如何劃定？」、「其法理根據為何？是否與實體法關係有關？」、「得否承認從屬關係、牽連關係之判決效擴張？於何種案例中得承認之？」、「如何適正地解釋運用新法所設之程序保障配套措施？」等問題。 本文共計六章，除第一章為研究目的與問題意識、第六章為結論外，略可分為三部分。第一部分（第二章、第三章），將反射效論區分為三說（反射效肯定說、既判力擴張說、全面否定說）後，回顧性地介紹、考察該項論争之狀況與發展，解明「何為反射效？為何承認（或不承認）反射效？」等問題；其後，針對所介紹的各該論說，進行批判性檢討，於論理構成上反對肯定論者的見解、於擴張必要性上質疑否定論的解決方式、於擴張正當性上加強、調整既判力擴張說之論述。從而，雖不採反射效，然於理論構成上回覆「應否承認反射效？」之提問，嘗試透過「實體法關係併程序保障」及「事前程序保障賦予」二方式，支持既判力擴張說的見解，以避免否定說下所面臨的困境與犧牲。 第二部分（第四章），以前三章之分析為著力點，檢討實體法及訴訟法於判決效領域中的應有關係。認為由訴訟法觀點及實體法觀點之二元觀點兼顧，可將實體法秩序反映於訴訟程序，並於程序保障所具財產權、自由權保護之手段面、附隨面上，與之相結合而承認判決效之擴張。據此，就成為反射效典型事案之連帶債務的判決效擴張，展開「從屬關係、牽連關係之判決效擴張」的論述與主張，並進一步與新法所設之事前及事後程序保障配套措施銜接，謀求實體及程序利益平衡兼顧的最大化與最適化。 第三部分（第五章），分析向來所認涉及反射效之具體個案，認為該等案例得由構成要件效、從屬關係或牽連關係之判決效擴張、訴訟擔當之判決效擴張等，配合事前、事後程序保障制度予以妥適處理，且相較於反射效之肯定說、（未結合事前程序保障之）否定說及片面既判力擴張說而言，更可兼顧各種程序法與實體法上的基本要求。其餘案例則因無判決效擴張之根據，故不得承認反射效或其他判決效之擴張。要之，就相關事案探討結果，無庸亦不宜以反射效為處理，於具體個案處理上回覆「應否承認反射效？」之提問。The “reflective effect” theory as a theory of civil final judgment effect is advocated by Germen scholars and adopted by some of the academics in Japan. In our country, the academics and practitioners take different attitude towards the use of reflective effect. Most of the former positively embraced it, but little relevant adjudication can be found in judging practice. In order to clarify the content and purpose of reflective effect to evaluate the appropriation of theory reception, provide a guideline and suggestions for judging in practice, this thesis will from the perspectives of procedural law and substantive law examine the theoretical formulation of “positive opinions( recognizing the reflective effect )”, “negative opinions ( denying it )”, and the opinions that “regard it as extension of res judicata”, find out how well can their arguments meet the procedural basic requirements and if there is any jurisprudence basis ( necessity & legitimacy ) for extending the binding effect of civil judgment, and conduct a study on the reflective effect responding to questions such as “What is the reflective effect?”, “Why recognize it?” , “Should it be recognized?” to expect to broaden as well as deepen the study on binding effect of adjudication. This thesis basically focuses on the above three questions. However, as far as subjective scope of judgment effect is concerned, in 2003 our country''s civil procedure law added the complementary measures of pre-and-post procedural protection for giving balanced overall consideration to the principles of resolving related disputes at once and due process. So people who do reasurch on subjective scope of judgment effect like reflective effect shouldn’t ignore the pre-and-post procedural protection system of new law. Furthermore, after reviewing and analyzing the theories in German, Japan, and our country, this thesis from the dualistic perspectives of procedural law and substantive law, advocates the “res judicata on the basis of subordinate or implicated relationship” with the pre-and-post procedural protection system to put the basic principles of procedural and substantive law into consideration. Consequently the scope of this thesis also cover: “Under our law how to delimit the subjective scope of judgment effect?” , “What is its jurisprudence basis? Does it have relation with the substantive law?” , “Can we recognize res judicata on the basis of subordinate or implicated relationship? In what kinds of cases can we recognize it?” , “How to appropriately apply the procedural protection system of new law?” , and so on. The thesis totally has six chapters. Except that chapter 1 is about objective of study and question awareness, chapter 6 is the conclusion, approximately it can be divided into three parts. The first part ( chapter 2 & chapter 3 ) is to classify the discussions about reflective effect as three opinions ( recognizing the reflective effect, denying it, and seeing it as extension of res judicata), then retrospectively introduce the situation of the debates, and answer “What is the reflective effect? Why recognize or deny it? ” Subsequently, this thesis will critically review each viewponint, oppose the reflective effect theory, query the solutions of negative opinions that can’t take full care of the necessity of extension, and strengthen or modify the the theoretical formulation about legitimacy of extension of res judicata proposed by scholars. Here the author refuses to recognize the reflective effect, but responds to the question: “Should it be recognized ?” by approving the conclusion that the reflective effect actually is extension of res judicata through “the relationship of substantive law and due proess” and “the pre-procedural-protection” to avoid sacrifices caused by the negative opinions. The second part( chapter 4 ) supported by above three chapters and ruminating the relation of substantive law and procedural law in the area of judgment effect, is to agrue that: from the perspectives of the procedural law and sbstantive law, it is possible to reflect the order of substantive law on civil procedure and combine the legal order with procedural protection on its means’ aspect ( proctects the property right and freedom) to recognize the extension of judgment effect. Accordingly, the author advocates “res judicata on the basis of subordinate or implicated relationship” , applies it in the joint and several libliaty cases which are typical cases of the reflective effect, and further connects it with the complementary measures of pre-and-post procedural protection to most properly pursue the balance of substantial and procedural interests. In the third part ( chapter 5 ), this thesis analyzes the cases thought to be about the reflective effect, being of the opinion that we can appropriately resolve the disputes in most of these cases with constitutive-elements-effect, res judicata on the basis of subordinate, implicated relationship or litigation-undertaking, and the system of pre-and-post procedural protection. Compared with the positive, negative opinions and the arguments of non-mutual res judicata, those solutions can meet the basic requirements of procedural law and substantive law much better. But the reflective effect or other extension of judgment effects won’t arise in the rest of these cases due to no grounds for the extension of judgment effect. In short, from the analysis of cases it isn’t only unnecessary but unsuitable to apply the reflective effect so that we can repond the question: “Should it be recognized ?