我國對於受婚生推定之婚生子女，有「確認之訴說」與「形成之訴說」之爭議，另第三人可否主張其為受法律上推定婚生子女之親生父親，提起確認親子關係存在或不存在之訴，實務上有肯定、否定說之爭論。我國家事事件法第63條、67條，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釋字第587號解釋文中之意旨指出：「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」。惟參照德國民法第1600條第1項第2款、第2項、第3項規定，在一定條件之下及為子女最佳利益之考量下，似宜允許生父提出否認之訴。綜上所述，淺見認為，對本議題有研究價值之所在及必要，因而提出比較法上之立法論與解釋論之探討。
There has always been a theoretical controversy over the status of child presumed to be born in wedlock (action for a declaration or action for change of rights). Whether a third party can claim that he is the biological father of a legally presumed child born in wedlock, and file a lawsuit to confirm the existence or non-existence of a parent-child relationship, there is also a debate in practice. Whether Articles 63 and 67 of Family Act are the situations mentioned in J.Y. Interpretation No.587 which stated that "The law which disqualifies a natural father from bringing an action for disavowal re his child presumed to be born in wedlock is intended to prevent damage to marriage stability, family harmony and the right of a child to education and nurture, and is thus not contrary to the Constitution. As to whether the law is to be amended to loosen the restrictions for such actions to a certain extent, this is a matter of legislative discretion." With reference to Article 1600 German Civil Code, under certain conditions and considering the best interests of the children, the court shall allow the biological father to file a denial action. This paper proposes a discussion on the legislative theory and interpretation theory in comparative law.
