遲延損害賠償請求權之結構

The Structure of Claim for Compensation for Default Damage

游進發(You, Chin-Fa)

《輔仁法學》 60期 (2020/12) Pp. 289-364

摘要

民法第230條與第231條規定是債務不履行法裡舉證責任分配之典範，對債務不履行法相關規定之新增與修正相當具有參考價值。遲延損害隨著時間經過可能越多。任何因給付遲延所生之財產上不利益，原則上均是遲延損害，均在應予以賠償之列。同時履行抗辯權發生本身，即自始讓債務人並不陷於遲延之責任。例如給付遲延後之市場價格跌落。這項價格跌落原則並非給付遲延所造成，而是原應由債權人所承擔之市場風險。債務不履行法裡，可歸責的對象乃債務不履行，而無須及於損害。定作人負有協力義務，是真正義務，未提供協力基本上構成協力遲延，亦即給付遲延。依最高法院與立法者見解，民法第507條所規定之損害應與第511條但書所規定之損害賠償作一致的理解，亦即這兩項損害賠償均包括以完成工作部分之報酬與未完成工作部分所得取得之利益。立法論上亦應將替補賠償作為給付遲延原則、固有之法律效果。立法論應允許債權人於債務人債務不履行時即得解除契約。依民法第260條規定，解除契約得與債務不履行損害賠償並存。但該條規定無論如何並非信賴損害賠償請求權基礎。立法論上為解決債權人支付費用的徒勞無益（信賴損害）之問題，應是參考德國民法第284條規定，允許債權人得就替補賠償請求權與徒勞費用賠償請求權（信賴損害賠償請求權），從兩者中選擇其一行使。

關鍵字

債務不履行 ； 給付遲延 ； 遲延損害 ； 補正遲延 ； 定作人協力

並列摘要

The provisions of Articles 230 and 231 of the Civil Law are models of the distribution of the burden of proof in the law of non-performance of obligation, and they have considerable reference value for the addition and amendment of the relevant provisions of the law of non-Performance of obligation. Default damage may increase over time. Any damage in property resulting from default is, in principle, default damage and should be compensated. At the same time, the performance of the right of defense occurs itself, which means that the debtor will not be caught in the default from the beginning. For example, the market price falls after the default. This price drop is in principle not caused by the default, but is a market risk that should be borne by creditors. In the non-performance of obligation Act, the attributable object is the non-performance of the obligation without damage. The contractor’s obligation to cooperate is a real obligation, and failure to provide coordination basically constitutes delay in coordination, that is, default. According to the opinion of the Supreme Court and the legislator, the damage prescribed in Article 507 of the Civil Law shall be consistent with the damage compensation prescribed in the provision of Article 511. Legislation should also consider substitute compensation as the principle of default and its inherent legal effect. Legislative theory should allow creditors to cancel the contract when the debtor’s debts are not fulfilled. According to Article 260 of the Civil Law, cancellation of the contract may coexist with damages for failure to perform the debt. However, this article does not in any way rely on the basis of the right to claim damages. Legislatively speaking to solve the problem of the futile use of creditors (reliance damage), it should refer to Article 284 of the German Civil Code, allowing creditors to have the right to request compensation for substitute compensation and the right to claim for compensation in vain (the right to compensation for reliance damage), Choose one of the two to exercise.

並列關鍵字

Non-Performance of Obligation ； Default ； Default Damage ； Default of Correction ； Cooperation of Proprietor

參考文獻

游進發，＜契約解除與不履行損害賠償請求之擇一兼契約解除前提下之信賴利益損害賠償請求：瑞士債務法之規範模式＞，收錄在：游進發，《債務不履行之法律效果》，台北：元照，2019 年 9月。

游進發，＜替補賠償請求權之結構＞，收錄在：游進發，《債務不履行之法律效果》，台北：元照，2019 年 9 月。

游進發，＜無名契約典型化之因素＞，收錄在：游進發，《民法之釋義與編纂》，台北：元照，2018 年 4 月初版 1 刷。

游進發，＜解除契約與債務不履行損害賠償：以對最高法院九十六年度台上字第一二〇四號判決之反思為限＞，收錄在：游進發，《債務不履行之法律效果》，台北：元照，2019 年 9 月。

游進發，＜德國民法上之應負責概念＞，《月旦法學教室》，176期，台北：元照，2017 年 6 月。