訴訟契約係訴訟行為之一種，在民事訴訟法中，有部分係為法所明文承認之類型；但對於非為法所明定之訴訟契約是否亦應承認其合法性之問題，在民事訴訟法之學理及實務發展上，甚具爭議性。此一問題之存在，並非僅在我國民事訴訟法發生，實則，其在民事訴訟法學有高度發展之國家，亦有類似之經驗。 在我國，就訴訟契約之研究，除部分教科書約略提及其重點之外，學者有直接對於部分具體訴訟契約類型進行研究者，例如仲裁鑑定契約、仲裁契約、證據契約、國際管轄權之合意及示範訴訟契約等；另亦有自程序選擇權論出發，而賦予訴訟契約之另一觀察角度者。學者之前開研究，對於訴訟契約制度之發展，具有重大影響，應值重視。 雖如此，本文認為對於此一議題之基本論，在我國似尚未有進行完整之系統分析者，就此似仍有補充之實益。為此，本文擬藉助德國學理及實務之發展經驗，對於訴訟契約相關問題加以探討，其中著重在對訴訟契約之本質論、種類、合法性及效力之評估，並試圖對於其合法性之界限為較具體之說明。此外，對於國內目前新近實務發展，尤其對於爭點協議所導致之理論爭議，加以評估，期能提供國內對於此一問題之研究素材。

The recent amendments of Civil Procedure Law extensively adopt the concept of agreement in litigation, such as agreement of simplifying the contestation, agreement of non-disclosure of court hearing, and so on. Although some of our scholars attempt to define the foregoing agreements among litigants on the theory of optional rights on civil procedure, essentially, such agreements should be within the concept of the agreement in litigation. Since current research on the theoretical basis of the mechanism of agreement in litigation in our country is insufficient, such mechanism could not be fully understood nor can it be functioned well. Thus, further study on this topic is needed in order to fulfill the real purpose of amending Civil Procedure Law and clarify the legality of the agreement in litigation that was not provided in the Law in the past as well.