票據善意取得之保護範圍

The Extent of Protection of the Rule of Good Faith Pertaining to Claims of Negotiable Instruments

李旻諺(Li, Ming-Yan)

《輔仁法學》 59期 (2020/06) Pp. 229-299

摘要

我國票據法第14條第1項明定：「以惡意或有重大過失取得票據者，不得享有票據上之權利。」此乃票據債權善意取得之規定。關於票據善意取得之保護範為並未如同民法關於動產善意取得有明文限於讓與人無處分權之情形。從理論沿革上兩者雖無不同，但在理論構成上，票據善意取得因票據債權與證券相結合，成為債權善意取得之例外規定，除了交易安全之維護外，更有促進證券流通之政策性目的，此從我國民法規範結構上之不同即可觀察出其與動產善意取得之差異性。因此，票據善意取得之保護範圍應較動產善意取得之保護範圍為廣，不限於讓與人無處分權之情形。如此解釋，更能符合現行法之規範架構，且達成促進票據流通之政策性目的。日本實務判決上關於此問題與我國實務判決相同皆以讓與人無處分權之前提作為判決基礎。學說上早期亦認為善意取得之保護範圍僅限於讓與人無處分權之情形，但近來學說有見解逐漸傾向認為善意取得之保護範圍不限於讓與人無處分權之情形，於其他票據行為瑕疵之類型上，亦有善意取得適用之可能。本文藉由與日本學說與實務進行比較法上之研究，分析其他票據行為瑕疵之類型在適用票據善意取得是否會與我國現行法規範發生衝突。若解釋上並不會與現行法規範發生衝突，則應擴大善意取得之保護範圍，強化票據使用之安全，以達促進票據流通之目的。

關鍵字

以手護手原則 ； 權利外觀理論 ； 票據債權善意取得 ； 動產善意取得 ； 讓與人無處分權 ； 票據流通安全

並列摘要

First paragraph, Article 14 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which rules ＂A person who acquires a negotiable instrument in bad faith or through gross negligence may not enjoy any rights in the instrument.＂, is the rule of good faith of claims of negotiable instruments. The extent of protection of the rule good faith pertaining to claims of negotiable instruments is not different from a transferor without title as Civil Law stipulated pertaining to the rule of good faith acquisition of movables. Even though there are no differences between these two in the historical perspective of theory, the rule good faith of claims of negotiable instruments becomes an exception of good faith of claims of negotiable instruments in a theoretical formation manner because the combination of claims of negotiable instruments and securities, which not only protects the safety of tradement, but also achieve the policy goals of the promoting market liquidity of negotiable instruments. In which we can observe the difference between good faith acquisition of movables and claims of negotiable instruments by the discrepancy of the normative framework of Civil Law. Thus, the extent of protection of good faith pertaining to claims of negotiable instruments should be wielder compare to the rule of good faith acquisition of movables, unlimited to a transferor without title. This interpretation should fit the current normative framework in a better manner, and achieve the policy goal of the promoting market liquidity of negotiable instruments. Practical judgments in both Japan and Taiwan regarding abovementioned question are setting the premise of not limiting to a transferor without title. Early arguments support the limitation to a transferor without title, but recently there's a obvert, which regard that the rule of good faith of claims can be applied to other kinds of defective acts of negotiable instruments. This article analyzed if there will be a conflict between the application of the rule of good faith of claims to other kinds of defective acts of negotiable instruments and the current normative framework by comparing practical judgments in both Japan and Taiwan. If there won't be a conflict by taking a interpretative approach, the extent of protection of the rule good faith then should be extended to achieve the goals of the promoting market liquidity of negotiable instruments.

並列關鍵字

Hand muss Hand wahren ； Extenor Rights Theory ； Good Faith of Claims of Negotiable Instruments ； Good Faith Acquisition of Movables ； Transferor without Title ； Safety of Market Liquidity of Negotiable Instruments

參考文獻

王澤鑑，《民法物權》，台北：自版，2010 年 6 月增訂 2 版。

王志誠，《票據法》，台北：元照，2015 年 9 月第 6 版。

史尚寬，《債法總論》，台北：自版，1990 年 8 月初版。

李開遠，《票據法理論與實務》，台北：五南，2004 年 2 月初版。

李欽賢，《票據法專題研究（一）》，台北：自版，2001 年 6 月 5 版。