船舶假扣押和海事優先權關係之探討─以「為使航行可能所生債務」為中心

我國海商法受到1952年國際扣押公約之影響，遂於 1999年而為修正，然而該次修正留下一些問題。其中最重大之問題點即在於海商法第4條第1項但書的情況，即使船舶發航準備完成，「為使航行可能所生之債務」仍可以假扣押。債權人固可以假扣押船舶，然而按我國海商法第24條之規定，由於「為使航行可能所生之債務」非我國海事優先權所得以擔保之優先債權，故在此情形之下即造成了一個適用我國海商法後之窘境，亦即，若所得以執行之金錢已被優先債權人（海事優先權之債權人）優先分配後，將導致第4條第1項但書而向法院提出假扣押之債權人最後可能分文未取，但是相關訴訟費用等等都已繳納下，最後卻一無所獲。真可謂此次修法使得相關債權人陷入不但賠了夫人，又折兵的最大困境。本文作者擬將上開問題予以探討，就我國修法以來相關之國際公約予以比較及研析，最後提出個人相關之淺見以及未來得以修法之建議，期待於下次修法時，解決此一難題。

關鍵字

船舶假扣押；海事優先權； 1952年海船扣押國際公約； 1967年海事優先權及船舶抵押權公約；海事訴訟

並列摘要

Influenced by the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952, the Taiwan's Maritime Act has been amended in 1999. However, it still remains a number of doubts; the most doubtful one is resulted from the proviso of article 4 paragraph 1 of the Maritime Act, under which the ship is allowed to be provisionally seized in order to ensure ”the obligations may have been incurred for the purpose of making preparations for commencing the voyage”, even though the ship has completed preparations for that voyage.Certainly, the creditor is allowed to apply for provisional seizure; nevertheless, the blur is whether ”the obligations may have been incurred for the purpose of making preparations for commencing the voyage” which does not belong to the scope of maritime liens stated in the article 24 of the Taiwan's Maritime Act is entitled to a preferential right of compensation. Having been completely distributed to the preferential creditors, the other creditors just apply for provisional seizure on the basis of the proviso of article 4 paragraph 1 of the Maritime Act; under this circumstance, such creditors may still obtain nothing, even if they have paid the litigation expense. The result of the last amendment is unfair yet.The issues addressed above will be discussed and resolved by means of comparing and analyzing the domestic law the international conventions. Finally, several recommends and suggestions for the next amendment will be given.