本文藉由行政訴訟中重新審理制度與民事訴訟中第三人撤銷訴訟制度之比較，再論行政訴訟中重新審理制度。兩者制度分別係行政訴訟與民事訴訟中第三人特殊救濟制度，皆以保障第三人訴訟權之方式，推翻確定判決效力。至於，第三人撤銷訴訟制度發揮作用之機會，遠多於重新審理制度發揮作用之機會，原因在於：其一，係第三人撤銷訴訟之主體，部分實務肯認不限於受確定判決效力所及之第三人，而重新審理之主體，實務僅肯認限於受確定判決效力所及之第三人；其二，係重新審理制度於行政法體系中之定位所使然，而非重新審理制度本身錯誤立法所導致。本文透過兩者制度之比較，提出建議如下：於重新審理制度之解釋層面，重新審理聲請人，限於撤銷判決中「應受卻未受事前程序保障、受確定判決效力所及、無法依其他法定程序請求救濟之第三人」。於重新審理制度之實踐層面，行政法院所作出准許重新審理之裁定，次數極少，此並非制度效率不佳所致，而是行政法體系中第三人其他救濟機制所致，故重新審理制度並無被取代之必要。於重新審理制度之修正層面，行政訴訟法第284條，應增訂「但應循其他法定程序請求救濟者，不在此限」，而行政訴訟法第285條，應修正為重新審理管轄法院限於事實審法院。
To rethink the system of trial de novo in administrative litigation, this article compares the system of trial de novo in administrative litigation with the system of third-party opposition proceeding in civil litigation. The two systems are extraordinary legal remedies of a third party in administrative litigation and civil litigation and overturn a final judgment with binding effect (res judicata) by the protection of the litigation right of a third party. The chance for the system of third-party opposition proceeding to play a role is far greater than the chance for the system of trial de novo to play a role. The reasons for the above are: first, the subject of the system of third-party opposition proceeding is not limited to the third party affected by a final judgment with binding effect in practice of civil litigation, while the subject of the system of trial de novo is limited to the third party affected by a final judgment with binding effect in practice of administrative litigation; second, this is due to the positioning of the system of trial de novo in the administrative law, rather than the wrong legislation of the system of trial de novo. Based on the comparison between the two systems, this article makes the following suggestions: At the interpretive level of the system of trial de novo, the claimant of trial de novo is a third party in avoidance proceedings, “who should be but is not protected by prior procedural protection, is within the reach of res judicata, and is unable to seek remedies through other legal proceedings”. At the practical level of the system of trial de novo, the administrative court has made very few rulings to approve trial de novo. This is not due to the inefficiency of the system of trial de novo, but due to other remedies for a third party in the administrative law. Therefore, the system of trial de novo is not necessary to be replaced. At the revised level of the system of trial de novo, Article 284 under Administrative Litigation Act should add the requirement, “except where a third party should seek remedies through other legal proceedings”. Article 285 under Administrative Litigation Act should amend the competent court for trial de novo, which must be the court for de facto trial.
全文瀏覽.pdf