為符合救濟途徑明確性之要求，最高法院應利用不合法駁回之裁定中，將第三審上訴許可要件予以明確化，使當事人就其上訴是否合法其有一定程度之可預測性，此亦屬於法之續造。在建立具體標準以前，概以例稿方式作成裁定，並不適宜。 為求法律規範上之一致，避免矛盾或輕重失衡之結果，除為從事法之續造、確保裁判之一致性（即存在有原判決與最高法院或其他同級法院之裁判見解歧異）外，其他具有法律上原則重要性之情形如下：（1）多數不特定之訴訟事件涉及同一法律問題之爭議；（2）系爭法律問題之解決將影響社會大眾之生活或交易；（3）為保障程序基本權、聽審請求權；（4）上訴顯有勝訴之望；（5）具有再審事由。此係考量第三審上訴制度之雙重目的，在法令統一解釋與個案正義之救濟間，企能求得均衡。並考量當事人兩造間慎重正確裁判之實體利益與迅速經濟裁判之程序利益，訟爭事件之類型與性質、原判決違背法令之態樣，以及司法資源之合理分配。 此外，惟有健全之下級審，才能使第三審上訴限制之嚴格化有其正當化基礎。下級審程序如愈健全，則愈有嚴格解釋許可上訴要件之正當化基礎；反之，則宜採行較為寬鬆之解釋。

To fulfill the requirement of definiteness of remedy, the Supreme Court should clarify appealing requirements of the third instance when dismissing an illegal appeal by summary order(Beschluss), so that the parties concerned, to a certain extent, can foresee whether his appeal is legal or not. This is a kind of law-making. Therefore, before establishing precise standards, it is inappropriate to make summary order by the use of routine drafts. The purpose of review appeal is not primarily to unify and rationalize Taiwan’s entire system of civil justice, but also to obtain correct justice in the individual case. These two purposes must balance. Therefore, besides the requirements of “the development of the law” and “securing of a unified case law” for permission to review appeal, the Suprume Court should adopt a understanding of the requirement of “fundamental significance” as follows: (1)There are numerous unspecific cases involved with the same legal matter. (2) The decision of the law dispute involved would have a great impact on the lives or transactions of the public. (3) For the purpose of protecting the procedural rights and the right to be heard . (4) The appeal has a highly favorable prospect of success. (5) Cases with the grounds for reopening of civil judgements.