研究生: |
林育萱 Lin, Yu-Shuan |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
論我國分居制度之挑戰與建構 The Challenges and Construction of Legal Separation in Taiwan |
指導教授: |
林昀嫺
Lin, Yun-hsien |
口試委員: |
黃詩淳
Huang, Sieh-chuen 劉晏齊 Liu, Yen-Chi |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
科技管理學院 - 科技法律研究所 Institute of Law for Science and Technology |
論文出版年: | 2021 |
畢業學年度: | 109 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 154 |
中文關鍵詞: | 分居 、婚姻破綻 、有責主義 、分居制度 、協議分居 、裁判分居 、分居期間 、離婚事由 、苛刻條款 |
外文關鍵詞: | Separation, Breakdown of Marriage, Fault-based Clause, Legal Separation, Agreement Separation, Judicial Separation, Period of Separation, Cause of Divorce, Hardship Clause |
相關次數: | 點閱:3 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
從統計數據顯示,於2020年我國至少有約7萬2千餘人在婚姻關係中與配偶處於分居狀態。然而,我國現行法制並無規範分居制度,除了可能使分居期間配偶及未成年子女之權利義務無法完整受到保障外,分居多年且婚姻有重大破綻的配偶,亦恐因民法第1052條第2項但書有責主義規定無法離婚。過去20餘年來,立法院多次針對分居制度相關草案進行審議,但最後均無疾而終。
我國分居制度有無建構必要,及其爭議與挑戰為何,實不無疑問。本文採法釋義學方法,分析現行法制規範內容與立法意旨對於分居配偶的保障與限制,並研究我國近5年間共415件判決,以判決研究方法探究在我國目前無分居制度的情形下,司法實務對於分居相關議題之見解;本文更在此基礎之上,參酌英國及德國的分居法制,藉由比較法方式釐清我國現行法制與外國立法例之異同及外國法制有無可資借鏡之處。
本文發現,建構分居制度在我國有其必要性,此分居制度包含增訂分居達一定期間作為離婚事由,增訂協議分居與裁判分居制度,以及明定分居期間涉及配偶及未成年子女之權利義務規範,本文並提出建議之立法草案,作為未來修法之參考。期待藉由分居制度之建立,除了能在配偶雙方衝突劇烈時,有機會以分居方式冷靜面對問題及重修舊好,並完善保障分居期間配偶與未成年子女的權利義務,同時在婚姻確實無法繼續下去時,原則上得以分居滿3年訴請離婚,避免配偶被迫處在有名無實的婚姻關係中,並以苛刻條款作為配套保障。
According to the statistics, in 2020, at least about 72,000 people in Taiwan live separately from their spouses in their marriage. However, there is no regulation about legal separation in Taiwan. In addition to the possibility that the rights and obligations of spouses and minor children during the separation may not be fully protected, spouses who have lived separately for many years and have major breakdown in their marriages may have difficulty to divorce under the fault-based clause, stipulated in the proviso of Paragraph 2, Article 1052 of the Civil Code. In the past 20 years or so, the Legislative Yuan has repeatedly deliberated on drafts related to legal separation, but none of them have passed.
It raises many questions about whether legal separation law is necessary in Taiwan, and what the disputes and challenges are. This thesis adopts the method of legal interpretation, analyzes the current legal norms and legislative intent for the protection and restriction of separated spouses. This thesis also focuses on a total of 415 judgments of Taiwan courts in the past 5 years by the means of case studies to see how Taiwan courts view the issues of separation in the circumstances of legal vacuum. Based on the former, this thesis then looks into the legal separation law in the United Kingdom and Germany, and clarifies the similarities and differences between Taiwan’s legal system through comparative law studies.
This study concludes that it is necessary to establish a legal separation law in Taiwan, which includes the addition of separated for a certain period as the cause of divorce, the addition of agreement separation and judicial separation, and the specification of the rights and obligations of spouses and minor children during legal separation. Moreover, this thesis proposes a preferred legislation draft as a reference for future amendments. It is hoped that through the establishment of legal separation, the spouses, during intense conflicts, may have an opportunity to calmly face the problems and restore the relationship, and the rights and obligations of the spouse and minor children may be fully protected. Meanwhile, once either of the spouse is unwilling to maintain their marriage, he or she would be able to file for divorce once the 3-year separation period is completed, with a hardship clause as a protection guarantee. It is to avoid the spouses being trapped in a meaningless marriage relationship.
一、中文文獻
(一)專書
吳齊殷,傅仰止,蕭代基主編(2021),《台灣社會基本變遷調查第八期第一次調查計畫執行報告》,中央研究院社會學研究所。
林秀雄(2020),《親屬法講義》,五版,台北:元照。
姜世明(2017),《民事訴訟法上冊》,五版,台北:新學林。
高鳳仙(2019),《親屬法—理論與實務》,十九版,台北:五南。
黃宗樂、郭振恭、陳棋炎(2014),《民法親屬新論》,十二版,台北:三民。
戴東雄(1988),《親屬法論文集》,初版,頁267,台北:三民。
戴炎輝、戴東雄、戴瑀如(2019),《親屬法》,修訂版,台北:元照。
(二)期刊論文
王如玄(1998),〈分居多久可以離婚?-引進分居制度的妥當性及判決離婚制度可能的變革〉,《法律與你》,第131期,頁64-75。
王如玄(2004),〈別居法制化之探討 ─ 兼論應否創設事實別居離婚條款〉,《律師雜誌》,第294期,頁84-111。
王曉丹(2006),〈論英國離婚法改革的法制發展-法政策、法理、法社會之探討〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,第35卷第5期,頁163-208。
王鵬翔、張永健(2015),〈經驗面向的規範意義—論實證研究在法學中的角色〉,《中研院法學期刊》,第17期,頁205-294。
永然法律事務所(1998),〈同床異夢,分居可行否?〉,《法律與你》,第130期,頁179-185。
吳彥君(1997),〈分居或離婚後子女監護權之行使──一九八九年以前英國法之規定〉,《歐美研究》,第27卷第1期,頁153-203。
吳煜宗(2012),〈以分居作為離婚法制內容之考察〉,《法令月刊》,第63卷第1期,頁59-77。
呂麗慧(2010),〈有責配偶離婚請求之否定--兼論分居為破綻表徵與苛酷條款〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,第161期,頁119-126。
呂麗慧(2011),〈論破綻主義離婚法之轉折與突破--兼評最高法院九十八年度台上字第一二三三號判決〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第192期,頁201-214。
李玲玲(1998),〈父母分居時對於未成年子女權利義務之行使或負擔應由何人任之〉,《軍法專刊》,第44卷第5期,頁7-11。
李聲庭(1965),〈論夫妻分居〉,《東海學報》,第7卷第1期,頁175-184。
林秀雄(2005),〈有責配偶之離婚請求─兼評最高法院九十三年度台上字第九八七號判決〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,第123期,頁240-250。
林秀雄(2009),〈民法親屬編:第九講判決離婚〉,《月旦法學教室》,第84期,頁71-83。
林菊枝(1985),〈美國婚姻法上之夫妻別居制度〉,《政大法學評論》,第31期,頁1-22。
施玉玲(1982),〈分居夫婦所得應合併申報?!〉,《萬國法律》,第2期,頁16。
范光群、黃柏夫、賴浩敏、陳傳岳(1983),〈生活的法律-「婆媳不合」可以做為「與夫分居」的理由嗎?〉,《萬國法律》,第12期,頁22-23。
高鳳仙(2001),〈評我國離婚法上分居條款之爭議〉,《萬國法律》,第115期,頁2-11。
曹艳芝(2000),德国离婚法的改革,當代法學,第6期,頁72-75。
曾進發(1983),〈淺論別居、分居與別居制度〉,《律師通訊》,第44期,頁3-5。
曾進發(1984),〈別居制度之起源與演變〉,《律師通訊》,第57期,頁4-10。
黃宗樂(2000),〈協議別居與訴請別居〉,《台灣本土法學雜誌》,第6期,頁170-172。
樊丽君,德国法定离婚理由研究,北京化工大学学报:社会科学版,2006年第2期,頁5-10。
戴東雄(2016),〈民法第1001條但書之分居規定應予法制化〉,《月旦法學教室》,第165期,頁63-69。
韓欣芸(2015),〈離家、離家-初探分居條款的推動與臺灣婦運法律改革〉,《性別平等教育季刊》,第72期,頁124-129。
(三)學位論文
尤月亭(2015),〈以建構別居制度健全判決離婚之研究〉,國立高雄大學法律學系研究所碩士論文。
陳弘明(2000),〈新離婚法之分居制度〉,中央警察大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
曾進發(1983),〈別居之研究〉,國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。
(四)政府文書
立法院(2002),〈立法院第五屆第一會期第七次會議議案關係文書〉,院字第1150號,委員提案第3895號。
立法院(2012),〈立法院第八屆第一會期第四次會議議案關係文書〉,院字第1150號,委員提案第13008號。
行政院主計處(2021),〈109年人口及住宅普查初步統計結果提要分析〉,行政院主計處編印。
法務部(2014),研商民法親屬編增訂分居制度修法會議(第3次)之會議記錄。
法務部(2016),研商民法親屬編增訂分居制度修法會議(第8次)之會議記錄。
法務部(2016),研商民法親屬編增訂分居制度修法會議(第13次)之會議記錄。
(五)網頁資源
ETtoday新聞雲網站,〈分居夫欠賭債只接小孩電話人妻當23年「空氣」心寒離婚〉。https://www.ettoday.net/news/20200210/1641918.htm#ixzz6DeQzVn4m(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
中時電子報,〈同婚還要再等等法務部本會期未提修法〉,2018年3月22日。https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20180322001558-260402?chdtv(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
內政部統計年報。https://ws.moi.gov.tw/001/Upload/400/relfile/0/4405/48349492-6f8c-453b-a9d1-4a8f0593b979/year/year.html(最後瀏覽日:10/13/2021)。
尤美女,分居條款 變成「包二奶條款」?源自中國時報報導。http://intermargins.net/repression/deviant/Marriage/divorce/discussion4.html(最後瀏覽日:10/13/2021)。
司法院,婚姻家庭性別統計。https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/lp-1267-1.html(最後瀏覽日:10/13/2021)。
立法院網站公聽會資料,〈「落實分居制離婚有保障」公聽會〉,2007年4年27日。https://www.ly.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=5607&pid=47852(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
自由時報電子報,〈法部研擬分居條款搶救閃離族〉,2011年11月6日。https://m.ltn.com.tw/news/society/paper/537130(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
自由時報電子報,〈降低離婚率擬修法增訂分居制度〉,2010年7月5日。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/408665(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
周雪君,在英國,自稱沒有宗教信仰人士3年間升近一倍,關鍵評論網,2016年5月24日。https://www.thenewslens.com/article/40357(最後瀏覽日:10/13/2021)。
網氏/罔氏女性電子報,〈小別勝新婚,三年便離婚?〉,2003年9月30日。http://bongchhi.frontier.org.tw/archives/29782010(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
網氏/罔氏女性電子報,〈分居五年就可離婚!女人的喜?還是痛?〉,2000年9月4日。http://bongchhi.frontier.org.tw/archives/1809(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
蘋果新聞網,〈賴芳玉:分居制度行不行〉,2014年12月21日。https://tw.appledaily.com/new/realtime/20141221/527035/(最後瀏覽日:02/16/2020)。
二、外文文獻
(一)期刊論文
Burton, F. (2020). OWENS V OWENS: A MOST CURIOUS CASE. Denning Law Journal, 32, 5-23.
Horton, K. C. (1981). The Constitutional Validity of the West German Divorce Reform Law. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 30(2), 462-466.
Manson, E., Hirschfeld,J., Lee, R. W., Corbet, R. G., Henderson, J. S. (1905). Judicial Separation. Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, 6(1), 147-156.
Thou shalt not divorce (2018). Scottish Private Client Law Review, 64, 4-5.
Trinder, L. (2018). Divorce reform in England and Wales: the human rights perspective. E.H.R.L.R., 6, 557-559.
Trotter, S. (2019). The state of divorce law, C.L.J., 78(1), 38-41.
家永登(2016),イギリス判例法における「家庭内離婚」,専修法学論集,第129號,1-46。
(二)政府文書
Ministry of Justice (2018), Reducing family conflict Reform of the legal requirements for divorce, https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reform-of-the-legal-requirements-for-divorce/supporting_documents/reducingfamilyconflictconsultation.
Ministry of Justice (2019), Reducing family conflict—Government response to the consultation on reform of the legal requirements for divorce, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications.
(三)網頁資源
A brief history of divorce, Cambridge Family Law Practice, http://www.cflp.co.uk/a-brief-history-of-divorce/ (last visit: Aug. 28, 2021).
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, Question for Ministry of Justice, UK Parliament, https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-05-25/7278 (last visit: Aug. 28, 2021).
Divorce, Handbook Germany, https://handbookgermany.de/en/live/divorce.html (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Family Court Statistics Quarterly (January–March 2021), table 12. Published at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2021 (last visit: Aug 30, 2021).
High Court upholds separation agreement 22 years later, Family Law Week, https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed113229 (last visit: Aug 30, 2021).
Making child arrangements if you divorce or separate, Government UK, https://www.gov.uk/looking-after-children-divorce/after-you-apply-for-a-court-order (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Marriages, divorces and life partnerships, Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Marriages-Divorces-Life-Partnerships/Tables/lrbev06.html;jsessionid=C46069BD832BCDC9FBFB35F69041B66F.live722 (last visit: Aug 30, 2021).
Money and property when you divorce or separate, Government UK, https://www.gov.uk/money-property-when-relationship-ends/maintenance-payments (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Property & Finances, CAMPIONS SOLICITORS, https://www.campionssolicitors.co.uk/family-law/divorce/about/property-and-finances (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Separation Agreements – How Far Are They Legally Binding?, Graysons Solocitors, https://www.graysons.co.uk/advice/separation-agreements-how-far-are-they-legally-binding/ (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Table 5, Divorces granted to a sole party: Party to whom granted and fact proven at divorce (numbers), 1979 to 2019, the Office for National Statistics, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/divorce/datasets/divorcesinenglandandwales (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Tini Owens loses Supreme Court divorce fight, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856 (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).
Unhappy marriage not grounds for divorce, supreme court rules, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/25/supreme-court-rules-unhappy-marriage-not-grounds-for-divorce-tini-hugh-owens (last visit: Aug. 30, 2021).