論定作人協力義務與比較研究

按我國民法第507條所規定業主協力義務，係我國工程法律爭訟上，時常發生與主要的爭議所在。然而我國實務上所採以不真正義務為其主要的法律性質，依據過往國內的學說文獻與工程實務的觀察，可以了解到所謂業主協力義務的違反，在實務中往往會直接造成承攬人無法繼續完成工程契約，或履約結果的瑕疵。採用不真正義務則屬於一種對於承攬人權利較低的保障方式，僅是對定作人造成權利減損的效果。故過去的論者，多半認為協力義務其法律性質應屬於真正義務或者附隨義務，才能給予承攬人更全面的保障。較諸於我國法，英美法所採的默示義務(imply warranty)，其法律效果也類似於真正義務違反的效果，承攬人仍在違約事件發生後向定作人請求損害賠償，並依情況得請求期待利益，可謂是對於承攬人較為完整的保障。另外，工程契約雖然由承攬人獨自履行，工程能否被完成仍是需要定作人各種協助才能完成，其中最有影響力者屬協力義務類型，而在許多工程實務中，雙方皆有發生違約行為。針對兩造違約關係的相互影響，英美法另以共同遲延(concurrent delay)的制度進行違約行為過失比例分配的判斷。此制度的優點在於部分狀況下繞開難以判斷或判斷成本過高的過失比例，透過給予承攬人延長工期等方式來分配雙方風險的承擔，並達到提升工程契約履行的效率。我國協力義務規範著重於違約結果事後的補償，除了上述保障未周的問題之外，相較於英美法針對此問題的架構，以事後訴訟的方式恐對於支付大量代墊工程款的承攬人有過高的風險，故本文想透過國內外制度的比較，探明關於我國工程履約義務爭議，可能更好的方向。

關鍵字

民法第507條；協力義務；默示義務；共同遲延；履約效率

並列摘要

According to ROC CIVIL LAW Article 507, breach of the proprietor’s obligation to cooperate is usually claimed by Contractor in litigation, as the main controversy. Th-ere are serverl theories about definition of proprietor’s obligation to cooperate, the prevailing view of legal practice is obliegenheiten. However, under academic research and observation of construction practice, the breach of proprietor’s obligation to co-operate usually makes fullfill of construction interrupt, or makes product defect. Us-ing obliegenheiten is a manner of lower protection to contractor,while makes propri-etor’s property reduction.According to view of academic research, researchers tho-ught proprietor’s obligation to cooperate as Hauptleistungspflicht or Nebenpflicht to improve protection of contractor’s property. Compare to ROC’s Law, the imply warranty in Common Law as proprietor’s obliga-tion to cooperate has similar legal effect,but contractor can claim compensation for damage in some situation,either,to protect contractor. In addition, while two or more events of default happen and some of them interact,it’s difficut to analyze proportion of liability for negligence from each of them. In Common Law, it applys concurrent delay to distribute liability for negligence between proprietor and contractor, rather than precise proportion of negligence. The advantage of this institution of law can avoid difficulty of calculating of proportion of negligence, by the way of giving constractot extension of time, not giving compensation for damage, to enhance eff-iciency of performance. According to ROC CIVIL LAW Article 507, this article is focus on compensation for damage due to damage result, with lower indemnity to constractor. Comparing to Co-mmon Law, it’s increasing the risk of contractor that paid disbursement. As stated above, this study wants to compare ROC Law and Common Law, and finds better so-lution for construction controversy.