本文之研究，旨在使補充處分權主義之法院闡明義務明確化與完整化。民事訴訟基本上採取處分權主義，但當事人可能於實際訴訟上提出不明確或不切合訴訟主題之聲明，亦可能於請求權或形成權競合之情形，漏未主張基於同一生活事實而產生之請求權或形成權，此等情形若形式適用存在於處分權主義之當事人自己責任原則，將使當事人之實體法上權利落空，故應承認法院負有闡明義務，以保障當事人實體法上主觀權利，補充處分權主義之不足。文中主要探討，法院應於何等範圍內補充處分權主義之不足，聲明方面闡明義務之判斷標準為何，不同之訴訟狀況應如何判斷法院是否負有聲明方面之闡明義務，尤其關於訴訟標的理論之法院闡明義務應如何解釋適用。此外，尚從比較法之觀點，分析比較我國民事訴訟法與德國民事訴訟法於聲明方面法院闡明義務之異同，並深入探討我國民事訴訟法第 199 條之 1 關於訴訟標的理論之法院闡明義務規定，與我國民事訴訟法第 244 條第 4 項關於補充最低損害賠償金額之法院闡明義務規定。

The intention of the essay is to complete and clarify the court’s obligation to point out the unclear or insufficient presentation in reference to the disposition prin-ciple by the parties. It is basically applied the disposition principle in the civil procedure, but the party is likely in the concrete procedure to bring forward the un-clear or inappropriate motion or to neglect to assert the important claims in the case of the concurrence of the rights to request or the formative
rights. If in such cases the principle of the parties’ self-liability under the disposition principle is applied, one party will lose her right in the civil substantive law. With the objective to pro-tect her right, the court has therein the obligation to point out the inappropriate mo-tion and the insufficiently alleged claims. The essay will hence discuss in which scope the court must supply the insufficiency of the disposition principle, how is the concrete case situation with respect to the court’s duty to designate the indefinite or inappropriate motion and how can the court’s obligation respecting the theory of the matter in dispute be explained and applied. Furthermore, it will not only analyze the difference of the court’s elucidative obligation in the area of the disposition principle between German und Taiwan Civil Procedure Rules, but also the court’s elucidative duty according to Sections 199-1, 244 subsection (4) of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure.