不真正連帶債務與連帶債務之界限

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情形，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，才適用民法第二八○條、第二八一條關於求償權規定，其餘情形均屬不真正連帶債務，各債務人間無求償關係。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。本文嘗試自民法第二七二條立法目的出發，並與德國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相比較，認為在民法第二七二條文義範圍內應適度放寬解釋，在各債務人就同一債務表示對債權人各負全部給付義務，或法律規定使各債務人對債權人各負全部給付義務者，即為連帶債務人。並以直接充分性理論補充是否屬於同一階層債務之判斷標準，使債務人與債權人間債之關係存在，均足直接引起債權人損害結果者，屬同一階層關係而為連帶債務，適用民法第二八○條至第二八二條求償規定；若單獨特定債務人之行為，或某債務人與債權人之關係存在，不足以造成債權人損害結果，須有其他債務人行為或債之關係介入，方足引起損害結果者，則認為屬不同階層而為不真正連帶債務，須依債務人間法律關係解決求償問題。如此可適當限縮我國現行法上不真正連帶債務之範圍，部分解決現行實務上不真正連帶債務求償爭議，以使與損害結果具直接充分性之債務人均負內部分擔責任，避免由債權人單方面決定終局應負責之債務人之不公平結果。

關鍵字

連帶債務；不真正連帶債務；給付；侵權行為；債務不履行；同一階層；求償；內部分擔；直接充分性；損害賠償

並列摘要

According to the judicial practice in Taiwan and related literatures, Article 271 of the Civil Code defines the quasi-joint-obligation as individuals obliged to compensate the same amount of damage under respective liabilities that differs from the joint-obligation requirements. And consequently there will be no reimbursement of their respective shares in the prestation among them. However, such rigid discrimination will lead to rather unfair and unreasonable sharing of prestation among these individuals. This article will review the legislation purpose of Article 272 in Civil Code and then make a thorough inquiry into the partition criteria between quasi-joint-obligation and joint-obligation, which was developed in judicial practice and related literatures of German Law. It will further suggest that some modifications should be made in interpreting Article 272 of the Civil Code. Firstly, when there are several individuals undertaking the same obligation and expressing or being provided by the code, each of them is bound to the creditor for the whole of the prestation, and this obligation might be regarded as a joint-obligation. In other words, the literal meaning ＂joint＂ is not always necessary as it has been contemporarily thought to be in the expression or code. Such expanded interpretation of Article 272 will certainly register more events into joint-obligation category than it was previously. Additionally, according to the German literatures, the term ＂in the same level of liability＂ occurs when respective liabilities are factually and directly sufficient to cause the same injury, all of the debtors shall be burdened for the obligation by their respective shares identical in the prestation as stipulated in Articles 280-282 of Civil Code. In this way, the scope of quasi-joint-obligations can be appropriately limited, and the disputes in current practice may be resolved. It is hoped that this proposed approach described in this article will help in the elucidation of the Article 272 of Civil Code in Taiwan and offer a foundation of fairness and justice for the debtors liable for the same damage.

並列關鍵字

Joint-obligation ； Quasi-joint-obligation ； Prestation ； Torts ； Breach of Contract ； Same Level of Liability ； Reimbursement ； Respective Shares in the Prestation ； Directly Sufficiency ； Damage Compensation