透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.206.13.112
  • 學位論文

契約解除後損害賠償問題之研究

A Study on the Damages of Termination of Contracts

指導教授 : 陳忠五

摘要


我國民法第260條規定,解除權之行使,不妨礙損害賠償之請求。因其並未就「損害賠償」之性質及範圍有所規範,而留有相當解釋空間。本條亟待解決的問題至少有三: 第一,我國通說及實務認為本條係採履行利益賠償主義,即解除契約後,債權人得請求債務不履行之損害賠償,且該損害賠償之債為原債之關係之變換型態。惟通說及實務同時就解除契約的效力性質,採取直接效果理論,認為解除會使原債之關係溯及消滅,則要如何圓滿說明履行利益損害賠償請求權於契約解除後的存續基礎?為尋求能使邏輯一貫之理論,本文考究德國、瑞士、日本、英國及美國之相關學說及法律規定,以及集大陸法系及英美法系之大成的四份國際法律統一文件。其中德國通說就契約解除效力之性質,採取「原契約變容說」,認為契約解除後,原契約關係仍然存在,僅內容改變為回復原狀關係,最能使履行利益賠償主義之理論首尾一貫,殊值我國參考。 第二,我國學說、實務多認為契約解除後,債權人仍得向債務人請求替補賠償,惟在民法第259條回復原狀的效果下,此一作法將導致債權人雙重受償,則在履行利益賠償主義下,應如何處理回復原狀及損害賠償(尤其是替補賠償)之關係?本文認為不論在大陸法系或英美法系,皆應先藉由回復原狀填補債權人之部分損害,再視債權人有無其他因違約而生之損害,復透過行使損害賠償請求權加以完全填補。 第三,我國最高法院55年台上字第1188號判例及同年第2727號判例,長年來否定債權人請求賠償任何「解除契約後所生之損害」之權利,另有學者認為,應允許債權人請求賠償「解除契約後所生之損害」,相對於此,「因契約解除而生之損害」則不與焉。本文主張,不論係上述何者,實質上均屬履行利益之損害,不應拘泥於損害發生的時點,亦不應因解除之行為而切斷損害與違約行為間的因果關係,而應允許債權人請求賠償。

並列摘要


According to Article 260 of Civil Code of R.O.C.: “The exercise of the right of rescission does not prejudice to the claim for compensation.”, creditors are still allowed to claim damages after they rescind a contract. However, the Article doesn’t specify the nature or coverage of the compensation, resulting in great dispute of different explanations. This thesis mainly deals with three of the most important issues regarding Article 260: First, the courts and prevailing literature in Taiwan hold that the damages in Article 260 is that of expectation interest, which is the transformation of the original obligation after the contract is rescinded. Meanwhile, the courts and literature also hold that when a contract is rescinded, it will be extinguished from the beginning. Nonetheless, it becomes difficult to explain why a creditor can claim damages of expectation interest out of a contract that doesn’t exist. In Germany, the prevailing theory contends that “rescission” doesn’t extinguish a contract from the beginning, but only transform the obligation of the contract promise to restitution, which forms a perfect solution to the contradiction. In this sense, however, it might be no longer proper to use the term “rescission”, since in common law it mostly refers to the situation where a contract is cancelled from the beginning when it is formed under fraud, duress, or undue influence. Instead, the term “termination” will be more appropriate and correspond to the international uniform law instruments. Secondly, the courts and literature in Taiwan argue that the creditor can still claim for damages in lieu of performance after a contract is terminated. However, along with the effect of restitution under Article 259 of the Civil Code, it can result in double-profiting of the creditor. Thus, we should reexamine the relation between “damages in lieu of performance” and “restitution”. This thesis claims that when a contract is terminated, “restitution” should first take place to reimburse the damages of the creditor, and the compensation of expectation interest deals with the rest of the damages resulted from the breach. This method works both in the civil law and common law systems. Finally, the civil cases No. 1188 (decided in 1966) and No. 2727 (decided in 1966) of the Supreme Court have long prevented the creditors from claiming the damages that happen after the termination of contracts, despite the fact that those damages are often damages of expectation interest. On the other hand, some argues that although “damages rose after the termination” can be recovered, “damages rose because of the termination” should be precluded from compensation. This thesis holds that all of the damages above are damages of expectation interest, and thus should be compensated as long as there is a causal link between the damage and the breach of the debtor, regardless of it happens before or after the termination.

參考文獻


一、中文部分
王澤鑑(2002)。《民法學說與判例研究(五)》。台北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2002)。《民法學說與判例研究(六)》。台北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2009)。《債法原理(二)不當得利》,增訂新版。台北:自刊。
王澤鑑(2017)。《損害賠償法》,增訂新版。台北:自刊。

延伸閱讀