- 學位論文
論消費者之抗辯延伸—債之相對性原則之例外
The Defence-Successiveness of Consumers：Exceptions to the Principle of Relativity of Debt
摘要
消費者之抗辯延伸，係指信用交易時，當第三人（金融機構、發卡機構等）介入資金關係時，若企業經營者有債務不履行情事時，消費者得否將對企業經營者主張之拒絕給付價金抗辯援用至對第三人主張。我國法制上透過制定「遞延（預付）型商品或服務無法提供時之消費性貸款處理機制」處理，並藉由修改特定行業之定型化契約應記載及不得記載事項，納入符合上開機制要旨之「消費借貸契約」條款，依消費者保護法第17條第5項強制構成企業經營者與消費者間契約之內容；在信用卡部分，「信用卡定型化契約範本」中亦有相關處理程序，並透過各發卡機構將該範本之條款訂入信用卡定型化契約中。上開規定均蘊含消費者抗辯延伸之精神，能一定程度達到對消費者信用交易之保護。 然而對比德日兩國對於消費者抗辯延伸之規範，我國適用要件及範圍較為狹窄，對於不符合要件之情形，實務見解對於消費者抗辯延伸之承認與否向來有肯否兩說。而近期在最高法院110年度台上字第2593號民事判決中，最高法院首次承認第三人融資型分期付款交易及信用卡交易中，當企業經營者與第三人有一定合作關係時，該合作關係對於消費者得否對於第三人拒付剩餘款項，有一定之重要性，對於抗辯延伸適用於我國實務案例有重要突破，亦對消費者保護開創新的里程碑。消費者之抗辯延伸在我國尚未立法之際，如何透過解釋論成為消費者保護的一大防護網，使消費者保護領域中亦開創債之相對性原則之例外，深具研究價值。 該如何開創我國消費者之抗辯延伸，本文主張「結合關係下消費者正當抗辯權之保護」，並輔以「結合關係下第三人承擔一定風險之合理性」（「損益同歸」、「控制風險能力」、「風險轉嫁分散」），共同作為建構消費者抗辯延伸之核心價值，並作為承認消費者抗辯延伸之必要性，藉以維護交易安全和公平正義。且本文論及之「消費者之抗辯延伸」，應屬於債之相對性原則之例外中「契約效力之擴張」類型，並應與「債權物權化」做區別。「消費者之抗辯延伸」並非保護原本消費者之消費契約債權得以實現，毋寧是透過「使第三人受消費者對於企業經營者所主張之抗辯法效拘束」來保護消費者對於抗辯之正當合理期待，並調節交易中之風險分配。法學方法上，就債之相對性原則之例外的不同類型應留意本質上之差異和保護目的不同，可透過民法第148條第2項誠信原則之調整機能來作為消費者抗辯延伸之正當化依據，而使三方交易合乎實質公平正義，並透過民法第1條引入外國法作為法理，對於消費者抗辯延伸之要件、效果將更為明確。 最後，為建立一體性適用之要件，在結合關係之認定上，應著重在「緊密結合關係」及「經濟上一體性」上，並因此認定抗辯延伸可適用於第三人融資型分期付款交易中，至於信用卡交易中（包含信用卡分期付款、一次繳款之型態、動用循環利息之還款型態等），須視實務上發卡機構與特約商店合作關係之不同，對於消費者之抗辯延伸並非須一蓋承認，可藉由調整抗辯延伸適用範圍達到平衡兼顧信用卡做為支付工具之功能及保障消費者權益之目的。
並列摘要
The defence-successiveness of consumers refers to situations in credit transactions where a third party (financial institution, card issuer, etc.) is involved in the financial relationship. If the business operator fails to fulfill their obligations, can the consumer extend their right to refuse payment to the third party? In Taiwan's legal system, this is addressed through enactment of “Mechanism for Handling Consumer Loans When Deferred (Prepaid) Goods or Services Cannot Be Provided”, and by modifying “Mandatory Provisions to be included in and Prohibitory Provisions of Standard Form Contract” of specific industries. These terms of the “consumer loan contract” are incorporated and enforced as part of the contract between the business operator and the consumer under Article 17, Paragraph 5 of the Consumer Protection Act. In the credit card section, “Template of Standard Form Contract for Credit Card” also includes related procedures. Thus, each card issuer incorporates these terms of the template into its standard form contract for credit card. These regulations embody the spirit of the defence-successiveness of consumers and provide a certain level of protection for consumers in credit transactions. However, compared to the regulations of defence-successiveness of consumers in Germany and Japan, the applicable conditions and scope in Taiwan are narrower. For situations that do not meet the conditions, there have always been differing opinions in practice on whether to recognize the defence-successiveness of consumers. Recently, in No.2593 Civil Judgement (2021) of Supreme Court, the Supreme Court for the first time recognized that the installment transaction financed by third party and credit card transactions, when there is a certain cooperative relationship between the business operator and the third party, this relationship has significant importance for whether the consumer can refuse to pay the remaining amount to the third party. This represents a significant breakthrough in the application of the defence-successiveness of consumers in Taiwan and marks a new milestone in consumer protection. Before the defence-successiveness of consumers is legislated in our country, it is highly valuable to explore how interpretative theories can serve as a major safeguard in consumer protection. This would create an exception to the principle of relativity of debt, which is more beneficial to consumers. How to establish the defence-successiveness of consumers in our country? This article proposes “the protection of legitimate defense rights of consumers under combined relationships,” supplemented by “the reasonableness of third parties bearing certain risks under combined relationships” (shared risks, risk control ability, risk transfer and dispersion) as the core values for constructing defence-successiveness of consumers, and as the basis for recognizing the necessity of such defence-successiveness of consumers. This aims to maintain transactional security and fairness. The defence-successiveness of consumers discussed in this article should fall under the category of “extension of contract effects” within the exceptions to the principle of relativity of debt and should be distinguished from “propertization of obligatory rights.” The defence-successiveness of consumers is not to protect the realization of the consumer's original contractual claims but rather to protect the consumer's legitimate and reasonable expectations of defense through binding the third party to the consumer's defenses against the business operator and to adjust the risk distribution in transactions. In legal methodology, attention should be paid to the differences in nature and protection purposes among different types of exceptions to the principle of relativity of debt. The adjustment function of the principle of good faith under Article 148, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code can serve as the basis for justifying the defence-successiveness of consumers, ensuring substantial fairness and justice in tripartite transactions, and making the requirements and effects of defence-successiveness of consumers clearer by introducing foreign law principles under Article 1 of the Civil Code. Finally, to establish uniform application criteria, the identification of combined relationships should focus on “close combined relationships” and “economic unity,” and thus recognize the applicability of defence-successiveness of consumers to the installment transaction financed by third party. For credit card transactions (including installment payments, one-time payments, and revolving interest rates repayments), the applicability of defence-successiveness of consumers should not be universally recognized but should be adjusted based on the cooperative relationship between the card issuer and the merchant to balance the function of credit cards as payment tools and the protection of consumer rights.