否認子女之訴相關問題之研究--評最高法院100年度臺上字第370號判決

CCUR > College of Law > Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law > journal articles > Item 987654321/49270

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/49270

Title:	否認子女之訴相關問題之研究--評最高法院100年度臺上字第370號判決 Retrospective Effect of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity of the Substantive Study: A Case Analysis on Supreme Court Judgment No. 100-Tai-Shang-Tzu-370
Authors:	郭欽銘
Contributors:	法律系
Keywords:	否認子女之訴溯及效力確認親子關係不存在之訴確認親子關係存在之訴婚生子女推定受婚生推定之生父任意認領提訴期間 Suit for disavowal of paternity Retrospective effect Verification of presumption of paternity Presumption of paternity Presumption of paternity Legitimatel presumed father Voluntary acknowledgement of paternity Peremption
Date:	2015-12
Issue Date:	2021-02-01 15:30:57 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	婚生子女否認之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴係同一訴訟標的或不同訴訟標的，就實務與理論而言，本有釐清之必要。如夫未提起否認之訴，或雖提起而未受有勝訴之確定判決，則該子女在法律上不能不認為夫之婚生子女，無論何人，皆不得為反對之主張在法解釋上是否合理？我國家事事件法第63 條、67 條，皆就「否認、確認子女之訴」有明確性規定，且該條之立法是否為司法院大法官釋字第587 號解釋文中指出：「法律不許親生父對受推定為他人之婚生子女提起否認之訴，係為避免因訴訟而破壞他人婚姻之安定、家庭之和諧及影響子女受教養之權益，與憲法尚無牴觸。至於將來立法是否有限度放寬此類訴訟，則屬立法形成之自由」。本文之研究主題「否認子女之訴溯及效之研究─評最高法院100 年度台上字第370 號判決」在實務與理論上之見解諸多分歧，其問題點為：否認子女之訴未列生母為共同被告之判決效力如何？否認子女之訴於判決確定後是否有溯及效力？否認子女之訴與確認親子關係不存在之訴之區別為何？否認子女之訴於提訴期間經過後，得否再提起確認親子關係不存在之訴？前揭相關法律之問題點，就實務與學術容有不同之見解，故認有立法論與解釋論學術研究價值之必要。 It is necessary to clarify that both denial of legitimacy and the verification of invalid presumption of paternity have the same purpose or not, in terms of practical and theoretical perspectives. Is it justifiable not to against selfassertion of illegitimate child even if a putative father doesn't have an action of denial of legitimacy or hasn't won the court judgment yet? From Article 63 and 67 of the Code of Family Act, there are clear provisions for “Disavowal and Confirm parent-child relationship.” Also, whether the legislative section of the Judicial Interpretation No. 587 word article explained that: “In order to avoid litigation damage to the stability of the marriage of others, family harmony and parenting rights, the biological fathers is prohibited bringing an action for disavowal to the presumption of legitimate children by law. There is no conflict with the Constitution. This is a form of freedom legislation whether legislation will take a limited relaxation of such litigation in the future.” The topic of this article “Retrospective Effect of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity of the Substantive Study: A Case Analysis on Supreme Court Judgment No. 100-Tai-Shang-Tzu-370” raises many different opinions theoretically and practically. The problems are: (1) If the mother is not listed as a co-accused, what is the effectiveness of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity? (2) Can Suit for Disavowal of Paternity be traced back the effectiveness after the judgment has been made? (3) What is the distinction between Suit for Disavowal of Paternity and the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship? (4) After the filing of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity during the peremption, should the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship be reconfirmed? Based on above-mentioned issues, it brings up different practical and academic perspectives and needs to have further discussion of legislation and interpretation study on value.
Relation:	輔仁法學 52 2016.12[民105.12] 頁1-56
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Law & Graduate Institute of Law ] journal articles

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	81	View/Open

View Licence

Loading...