摘要
我國目前學說實務將數債務人基於各自原因，對於債權人負同一給付義務，而債權人僅能受領一份給付情形，向來嚴守民法第272條要件規定，限於當事人有明示之意思或法律規定為連帶債務者，始得成立連帶債務，才適用民法第280條、第281條關於求償權規定，其餘情形均屬不真正連帶債務，並認為各債務人間因無分擔部分，故不發生求償關係。但此一分類方式，將發生不真正連帶債務人中先為給付之債務人無法求償之不公平、不合理結果，或因賠償權利人主張請求權基礎不同，影響賠償義務人給付後求償關係之荒謬結論。因此，所謂不真正連帶債務是否果有存在必要？其與連帶債務間關聯為何？與連帶債務間概念界線、可包含類型與效力適用等細節如何分辨，即有探討必要。 因我國民法第272條規定係仿瑞士債法第143條規定而來，至於其他絕對效力、內部求償關係等規定，國內學說發展多參考德國法學說，且不真正連帶債務爭議亦係從德國發源而來，故本文擇取德國民法、瑞士債法上關於連帶債務立法規定與不真正連帶債務學說發展，嘗試以比較法之研究方法，透過研析德國、瑞士法上連帶債務與不真正連帶債務在學說與實務上發展出分類特徵，檢討解決我國不真正連帶債務理論下不公平、不合理情形。進而在我國關於連帶債務規定現況下，適度放寬民法第272條文義解釋，將第272條規定「同一債務」解釋為「債權人同一給付利益」，無須限制數債務人債務發生原因，凡：1.數債務人明示或默示對於債權人各負全部給付責任，或2.依法律規定數債務人須對債權人各負全部給付責任，或3.數債務人中部分債務人表示對債權人各負全部給付責任、部分債務人因法律規定對債權人各負全部給付責任等型態，在債權人僅能受領一份給付之前提下，該數債務人均得成為連帶債務人，不以明示或法律明文規定為「連帶」為必要。以使我國法上連帶債務效力規定，尤其是求償規定，得適用於目前我國學說與實務咸認屬於不真正連帶債務之債務人間求償關係，以適當平衡多數債務人內部利益。 故本文除第一章緒論及第七章結論外，第二章主要藉由分析我國民法第272條立法目的、目前關於所謂連帶債務與不真正連帶債務要件與效力之發展，及現有連帶債務類型，檢討現有連帶債務類型背後共同點，及適用效力結果，嘗試找出連帶債務與不真正連帶債務間有無區分之必要性。第三章則主要分析德國法上連帶債務成立要件、其適用效果，與不真正連帶債務區別依據，透過檢討德國目前連帶債務與不真正連帶債務適用情形，以分析德國法上不真正連帶債務體系與我國之異同。第四章關於瑞士法之比較研究，方向亦同。第五章則透過分析比較法上關於連帶債務之規定與適用情形，檢討我國現況以尋求改善之道，並在我國現行法架構下，嘗試於第六章重新建構我國法上原非連帶債務之多數債務人情形，以使現行法下不真正連帶債務之多數債務人間，得以適度分擔其責任，避免由債權人單方面決定終局應負責之債務人之不公平現象。
並列摘要
The contemporary literatures and decisions holds strictly that when there are several persons undertaking the same obligation and each of them is bound to the creditor for the whole of the prestation, there must be expression or provided by the act as stipulated in the Article 272 of Civil Code to make this obligation a joint-obligation. Otherwise, this will be only regarded as quasi-joint-obligation, and consequently there will be no reimbursement of their respective shares in the prestation among them as stipulated in the Article 280 and 281 of Civil Code. Such rigid discrimination will lead to rather unfair and injustice sharing of prestation among these several persons, and should be examined and criticized. Since the Article 272 of Civil Code was believed to be the reception of Article 143 of Swiss Obligation Law, and the literatures regarding the absolute effects, internal sharing of prostration, and the disputes of quasi-joint-obligation were influenced by German Law, this thesis makes a thorough comparative reviews among the related provisions and literatures of German Civil Code, Swiss Obligation Law with reference to our Civil Code. This thesis holds that the grammatical interpretation of Article 272 of Civil Code should be more flexible and extensive, that is, the provision phase of undertaking “the same obligation” should be interpreted as “the same performance interest of creditor” regardless the cause of obligation. Videlicet, the situations that several persons express, imply or are provided by the act to be bound to the creditor for the whole of the prestation, or some with expression and others are provided by the act could be all indiscriminately regarded as joint-obligation. Such being the case, the attempt of fair and justice sharing of prestation among so-called quasi-joint-obligators could therefore be achieved. Asides from the first and last chapters, the Chapter 2 of the thesis generally introduces and reviews the stipulations of joint obligation in our Civil Code and attempts to criticizes the rigid discrimination from the quasi-joint-obligation. Then thorough elaborations with the same reference to joint-obligation related literatures, decisions, and stipulations regarding the German Law and Swiss Law are made deliberately in Chapter 3 and 4 respectively, followed by the Chapter 5 represents an in-depth comparative analysis among these two legal system and our Civil Code. This thesis try to reform the traditional concept of joint-obligation trying to flexibly and extensively make grammatical interpretations of Article 272 of Civil Code to lead to fair and justice sharing of prestation among these several persons who fulfill the same performance interest of the creditor.