- 學位論文
論第三人侵害租賃權及其救濟
Infringement of Lessee’s Rights by Third Parties and Remedies
摘要
在第三人侵害債權的議題，學說與實務向來著眼於民法第184條第1項前段保護客體的爭議上；本文則試圖由債權不可侵性出發，建立第三人侵害債權之基礎，更全面地檢視現行法規範上提供債權人何等救濟手段。並且，具體討論上，將債權侵害之客體限於租賃債權，更得以在分析請求權基礎之際，與租賃債權之特徵進行連結，更具體地指出應如何保護承租人之租賃債權。 首先於第二章的部分，本文將先就債權之意義與內涵進行論述，並得出現行體系下債權與物權二分之見解，且於債、物二分之基礎上，仍可見債權與物權之交錯，而有界限模糊之現象。接著，便聚焦於租賃權的討論上。租賃權雖有少數學說持物權性質之見解，惟現行法規範下仍屬於債權。然而，立法上亦給予了租賃權第三人效力，民法第425條租賃債權物權化便為典型事例。另外，同屬債權第三人效力者，則係關於債權不可侵性的討論，即債權本身效力具有不可侵的特徵，第三人不得任意侵害之，此係債權的對外效力。同時，債權不可侵性亦建構了第三人侵害債權之基礎，在侵害債權之請求、受領或保有權能之際，均屬債權不可侵之違反。並且，本文將進一步釐清債權物權化與債權不可侵性之差異，結論上，債權物權化係立法者針對違反債權不可侵性之特殊形態進行獨立規範。 再者，第三章之部分，本文將承接著債權不可侵性的討論，開展租賃債權受第三人侵害時的具體保護。首先係承租人之損害賠償請求權，向來討論多著重於過失侵權行為之保護客體上，而本文基於債權不可侵性認為債權應作為「權利」而受保護，與第三人行為自由之平衡，則應透過主觀歸責要件與不法性控制。特別於租賃權侵害時，主觀歸責要件之判斷，「占有」此一公示外觀存否為重要參酌因素。關於民法第184條第1項後段與第2項規定之請求，雖債權於此無保護客體之爭議，惟仍應注意其他要件之解釋適用。另外係關於承租人妨害排除之主張依據。對特定對象為主張者，係指不動產相鄰關係之規範，承租人藉由法定債之關係向相鄰不動產所有人或使用權人主張之；對一般人為主張者，立法者未賦予承租人民法第767條物上請求權，然仍有其他如民法第962條、代位所有人之承租人民法第767條之請求，及透過侵權行為法損害賠償之回復原狀等，均可作為承租人排除妨害之不同依據。最後則係關於不當得利返還請求權，當租賃權受第三人侵害而有不當利益流動產生，占有租賃物之承租人基於其權益歸屬，得向第三人主張返還占有利益與使用利益，前者得透過原物返還為之，同時有排除妨害之效果；後者則僅得以價額返還為之。
並列摘要
This article attempts to establish the basis of third-party infringement of obligatory right from the perspective of the inviolability of obligatory right, and to examine more comprehensively what remedies are available to creditors under current law. Moreover, in the specific discussion, limiting the object of debt infringement to lessee's rights, it is possible to analyze the basis of the claim and link it to the characteristics of lessee's rights, so as to more specifically point out how to protect the tenant's lessee's rights. In the second chapter, we will first discuss the meaning and connotation of obligatory right, and come to an understanding of the dichotomy between obligatory right and property rights under the current system, and on the basis of the dichotomy between obligatory right and property rights, we can still see the intersection of obligatory right and property rights, and the phenomenon of blurred boundaries. Next, we will focus on the discussion of lessee's rights. Although there are a few doctrinal views on the nature of property rights, the leasehold is still a debt under the current law. However, the legislation also gives third-party effect to lessee's rights, and Article 425 of the Civil Code materializes lessee's rights as a typical example. In addition, there is a discussion on the third party effect of obligatory right and the inviolability of obligatory right. The third party may not infringe on the third party's rights, which is the external effect of the debt. At the same time, the inviolability of obligatory right also forms the basis for the infringement of obligatory right by third parties, which is a violation of the inviolability of obligatory right when claiming, receiving or keeping the rights of obligatory right. Furthermore, this paper will further clarify the difference between the materialization of obligatory right and the inviolability of obligatory right, and classify the effect of the materialization of obligatory right into a special form of the inviolability of obligatory right, which is regulated independently by the legislator for a specific type of inviolability violation. Furthermore, in the third chapter, this article will follow the discussion of the inviolability of obligatory right and start the specific protection of lessee's rights when they are infringed by third parties. First of all, the right to claim damages for the lessee's infringement has been discussed mostly in terms of the object of protection for negligent infringement, while this article considers that the debt should be protected as a "right" based on the inviolability of the debt. However, the balance with the freedom of action of third parties should be controlled by the subjective attribution element and wrongfulness. In particular, the existence of the public appearance of "possession" is an important factor in determining the subjective imputation element in the case of lessee's rights infringement. About Article 184, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the Civil Law, although there is no dispute on the protection of the object of the debt, attention should be paid to the application of the interpretation of the other elements. In addition, the basis for claiming the exclusion of the lessee's nuisance is the regulation of the neighboring relationship of the real property, and the lessee claims the neighboring owner or user of the real property through the relationship of the legal debt. The legislator did not grant the tenant the right to petition in rem under Article 767 of the Civil Code, but there are still other grounds such as Article 962 of the Civil Code, Article 767 of the Civil Code for subrogation of the tenant, and restitution for damages under the Tort Law, which can be used by the tenant to exclude the nuisance. When a lessee's rights is infringed by a third party and an improper flow of interest arises, the lessee in possession of the lessee's rights property may claim the return of the interest in possession and the interest in use from the third party based on the vesting of the lessee's interest, the former through the return of the original property with the effect of precluding nuisance, and the latter through the return of the price only.