- 學位論文
最高限額抵押權之研究——以實務爭議問題為中心
A Research on Revolving Mortgage: Centering on Practical Issues
摘要
最高限額抵押權為實務上爭議繁多之問題，然於民國九十六年民法物權編修正施行增訂相關章節後，學說上多僅就新法內容為介紹說明，而未持續聚焦於新法解釋適用上發生的各項疑義，對新舊法銜接適用衍生之相關爭議亦缺乏系統性之整理。故本文透過對最高法院判決進行實證研究與分析，爬梳出重要之法律爭點，並就各個爭議要件中，對照我國學說見解進行整理，並參考日本法之文獻進行討論。 本文於第二章中先就最高限額抵押權之基本內涵為介紹。其中就最高限額抵押權的核心特徵而言，早期實務見解認為最高限額抵押權係擔保「未來可能發生」之債權，然學說和現行民法第881條之1均強調，最高限額抵押權應該係擔保「不特定」之債權；最新的實務裁判也指明擔保債權的特定與否，是最高限額抵押權和普通抵押權的最大差異之處。至於最高限額抵押權的從屬性該如何理解和解釋，學說上向來區分成「從屬於基礎法律關係」與「從屬性最大緩和化」（或否定從屬性）兩說，實務裁判則多未明確表示見解。 本文第三章在處理最高限額抵押權的擔保債權範圍與概括最高限額抵押權的問題。本文認為，最高限額抵押權的擔保債權範圍於形式要件上，必須於土地登記簿上有所記載，如僅記載於抵押權設定契約書上，則該契約書必須實際提出作為登記簿的附件，才發生物權效力；在實質要件上，擔保債權範圍的登記內容必須符合「實質限定性」與「客觀明確性」。倘形式要件或實質要件有任一不符合，則屬於擔保債權範圍沒有限制的概括最高限額抵押權。本文認為，於民國九十六年民法物權編修正施行後設定的概括最高限額抵押權應屬無效，與之相對，於此前設定的概括最高限額抵押權則為完全有效。 本文第四章則處理最高限額抵押權的讓與問題。最高限額抵押權之讓與包含三種型態：與基礎法律關係一併讓與、獨立讓與、與擔保債權一併讓與。實務上爭議最大者為獨立讓與，本文認為，民法物權編施行法第17條具有真正溯及的效力，因此不論最高限額抵押權的獨立讓與是發生在民國九十六年民法物權編修正施行前或後，均為有效；至於獨立讓與的效力應採不區分說為當，不論受讓者的地位為何，獨立讓與的最高限額抵押權僅發生債權人標準變更，債務人、擔保債權範圍標準則不變。 本文第五章、第六章詳盡處理了最高限額抵押權確定的問題。就最高限額抵押權的約定確定而言，本文第五章認為「確定期日」與「存續期間之終點」是完全相同的概念；至於「存續期間之起點」是否同樣也有限制擔保債權範圍的功能，本文認為應該判斷該起點之約定是否與最高限額抵押權設定日相同而定。就最高限額抵押權的法定確定而言，本文詳細回顧了民國九十六年民法物權編修正施行前實務裁判所宣示的各項確定事由，並與現行民法第881條之12第1項各款規定相互對照說明。於此部分，本文重要的見解有：債務人單方拒絕繼續發生債權債務關係，並不該當民法第881條之12第1項第2款的「擔保債權不再繼續發生」；民法第881條之12第1項第6款係過往實務裁判見解的明文化，因此當然具有真正溯及效力；民法第881條之12第1項第6款但書所指「查封經撤銷」應係指抵押物於物理上遭啟封始該當之。 最後，本文第七章完整介紹了共同最高限額抵押權。共同最高限額抵押權分成兩種類型，一為純粹共同最高限額抵押權，一為累積共同最高限額抵押權。就前者而言，本文認為其要件為：擔保債權範圍、債務人、最高限額完全同一，且於土地登記簿上註記為「共同擔保」；而其於效力面得準用民法第875條以下關於普通共同抵押權的規定。反之，若上開要件缺有任何之一，則為累積共同最高限額抵押權，本質上並非「共同擔保」，在效力上也不應該透過民法第881條之17準用民法第875條以下之規定。
並列摘要
While the revolving mortgage has always been a controversial issue, after implementation of the amendment to the rights in rem of the Civil Law of the Republic of China in 2007, instead of focusing on the various doubts arising from the interpretation and application of the amended law, most scholars focus only on introducing its content. Furthermore, there also lacks a systematic collation of related disputes arising from the application of the new and the old law. Therefore, this paper summarizes the critical legal disputes of the revolving mortgage through imperial research of the Supreme Court's decision. This paper then discusses these disputes concerning existing Taiwanese literature and with comparison research to Japanese law. In the second chapter, this paper first introduces the basic connotation of the revolving mortgage. Among these, early court decisions state that the core characteristic of the revolving mortgage is a guarantee for the "probable future" claims. However, scholars and the current Article 881-1 of the Civil Law emphasize that the revolving mortgage should be to secure "unspecified" claims; the latest court decisions also specify whether the secured claims are specific is the biggest difference between a revolving mortgage and a general mortgage. As for how to understand and explain the subordination of the revolving mortgage, scholars have always been divided into "subordination to the basic legal relationship" and "maximum mitigation of subordination" (or negation of subordination), however, most court decisions fail to express its opinion on this matter clearly. The third chapter deals with the scope of the secured creditor's claims of the revolving mortgage and summarizes the issues of the unlimited revolving mortgage. This paper believes that registration of the revolving mortgage in the land register is a formal requirement for the scope of the secured creditor’s claims. If the scope of it is only recorded in the mortgage right contract, then the contract must be an appendix to the register for it to be effective in rem. As for the substantive requirements, the content of the registration of the scope of secured claims must conform to "substantial limitation" and "objective clarity." If either of the formal or substantive requirements is not met, it should be identified as the unlimited revolving mortgage. This paper believes that the unlimited revolving mortgage set after the implementation of the amendment to the rights in rem of the Civil Law of the Republic of China in 2007 should be invalid, while those set before the implementation are completely effective. The fourth chapter deals with the issue of the assignment of the revolving mortgage. The assignment of revolving mortgage includes three types: assignment with the basic legal relationship, independent assignment, and assignment with secured claims. Regarding the most controversial independent assignment, this paper believes that Article 17 of the Implementation Law of the Civil Law of rights in rem is retroactive. Therefore, independent assignments are valid regardless of whether the independent assignment of the revolving mortgage occurred before or after the implementation. As for the effects of the independent assignment, this paper believes that regardless of the status of the assignee, the revolving mortgage of an independent assignment only changes the creditor’s standard, while the debtor’s standard and the standard for the scope of claims remain unchanged. The fifth and sixth chapters deal with the issue of the determination of the revolving mortgage in detail. Regarding the determination of the revolving mortgage, Chapter 5 of this paper believes that the "determination date" and the "end of the duration" are the same concept; as to whether the "start of the duration" also has the function of limiting the scope of secured claims, this article believes that this should be determined regarding whether its agreement on the starting point of the duration is the same as the date when the revolving mortgage is set. As far as the legal determination of the revolving mortgage is concerned, this article reviews in detail the various determinate reasons announced by court decisions before the implementation of the amendment and compares them with the current Civil Law Article 881-12 Paragraph 1. The important opinions of this paper regarding this include: the debtor’s unilateral refusal to continue the debt relationship should not be regarded as the "secured creditor’s claims shall no longer occur" in Article 881-12 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 of the Civil Law; Article 881-12 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 6 of the Civil Law is the implementation of past court decisions, making it retroactive effective; the "cancellation of the attachment" in Article 881-12 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 6 should mean that the attachment of the mortgaged property is "physically" canceled. Finally, Chapter Seven fully introduces the joint revolving mortgage. The joint revolving mortgage can be divided into two types, pure joint revolving mortgage, and cumulative joint revolving mortgage. Regarding the former, this article believes that its requirements are: the scope of the secured creditor’s claims, the debtor, the maximum limit being exactly the same, and registration in the land register as a "joint mortgage." In terms of its effectiveness, the pure joint revolving mortgage can apply the provisions below Article 875 of the Civil Law on general joint mortgage rights. However, if any one of the above requirements is not met, the mortgage can only be identified as a cumulative joint revolving mortgage, which is not a "joint guarantee" and the provisions below Article 875 of the Civil Law do not apply.