本研究起因是我国大陆地区关于释明制度的相关研究虽然已臻成熟，但是我国大陆地区和台湾地区之间释明制度的比较研究却相对较少，因此尝试整理和分析两岸自过去以来关于释明的演进发展，期盼能对未来的法制建立有所助益。本文首先叙明释明的法理上根据及基本原则，包含了平等原则、保护当事人实体与程序利益、确保当事人的程序主体权。其次，自比较法上立法例的角度观察，可以发现释明的内容及范围，均有逐渐地扩大，由消极转向积极的介入的趋势。进一步比较两岸各家学说后，本文认为应当尽量放宽释明的范围，其中法官法律见解或心证的公开这一有争议的释明类型，法院应当以介入程度较低的方式向当事人释明，至于释明的边界，其标准应该是在当事人陈述的“自然事实”范围内，法院始得向当事人释明。接着，司法实践情形的现况切入，透过对大陆地区及台湾地区实务运作的比较，认为应要求大陆地区法官于判决书中载明释明的行使与否，此外，无论在法律条文或判决书中，皆不应该滥用“释明”一词，该词语的使用应当仅限于狭义的释明。最后，针对完善释明制度的结论，建议应当设立统一的一般释明规则并制订于民事诉讼法中，其中应分为不同诉讼阶段而有相对应的释明义务，制订时应当融合我国民事诉讼法的语境，注意思考是否合用，同时，也应该精进司法实务界审判工作者法学专业的素质。

The main purpose for this research is that the relevant research on Elucidation of Courts in mainland China have been well-developed, however, the comparative research on Elucidation of Courts between mainland China and Taiwan is relatively few. Therefore, we try to sort out and analyze the Courts’ Elucidation system on both sides. Looking forward to be helpful to the establishment of the Courts’ Elucidation system in the future.This article first states the legal basis and theoretical source of the Elucidation of Courts, including the principle of equality, protecting the parties' substantive interests and procedural interests, and ensuring the parties' procedural autonomy rights. Secondly, from the perspective of the legislation on comparative law, we can find that the content and scope of the Elucidation of Courts have been gradually broadened, and there has been a legislative tendency from passive elucidate to active intervention. After further comparing the various theories on both mainland China and Taiwan, this article believes that the scope of Elucidation of Courts should be as wide as possible. Among them, the disclosure of legal opinions or mental impression on evidences by judges, the controversial types of the Elucidation of Courts, the courts should explain to the parties in a less involved way. As for the boundaries of the Elucidation, the most important standard should be within the scope of the "natural facts" stated by the parties, and thus the court can elucidate or interprets to the parties. Then, speak of the perspective of the current situation of judicial practices, by comparing the actual judicial operation of the mainland China and Taiwan, it is believed that the judges in the mainland China should be required to specify in the court’s verdict whether the Elucidation is exercised in the procedure or not. In addition, whether it is in the legal provisions or the judgment, the using of the term " Elucidation " should not be abused, and the use of this term should be limited to strict interpretation.Finally, in response to the conclusion of perfecting the interpretation system, it is suggested that a unified general Court Elucidation rule should be established and literally formulated in the civil procedure law, and which should be divided into different litigation stages with corresponding Elucidation obligations or rights. The legislation formulation should be integrated with the context of mainland China’s civil procedure law, and should be also pay attention to whether it is applicable and suitable for use. At the same time, we should also improve the professional quality of judicial personnel in our country’s judicial practice.