論違反強行規定之法律行為

本文以「強行規定」為論文主題，討論法律行為違反強行規定之效力。私法自治是民法的基本原則，個人得基於自己的意思為自己形成法律關係。法律行為是實現私法自治的工具，故對法律行為予以限制，必須具有足夠的正當性基礎。「強行規定」具有多重含義：（1）當法律行為發生其他效力瑕疵時，行為能力欠缺、錯誤、詐欺、脅迫、無權代理、無權處分等效力瑕疵事由及衍生規範，不宜歸入「強行規定」的概念下，而應依各該規範定其效果。當法律行為未滿足法定生效要件時，法定生效要件亦不宜歸入「強行規定」的概念下。未滿足法定生效要件，法律行為不生效，而非無效。（2）「強行規定」的第一類含義是「不得被排除適用法律後果的法律規範」，旨在強制形成當事人間的法律關係。與之相對，「得以被排除適用法律後果的法律規範」，被稱為「任意規定」；「得以在一定條件下排除者」，被稱為「半強行規定」。法律可能已經明確規定，某一法律規範得否以及在何種條件下得被排除，這種法律規定可被稱為「變更規定」。當無「變更規定」時，即法律對法律規範得否被排除適用未予規定時，應當考慮排除適用法律規範之法律後果，是否過度限制契約自由，是否為排除誠信原則及衍生條款，以及是否為拋棄基本權利與關於弱者保護的規定。法律行為中，違反此種意義強行規定的部分，係屬無效。被排除適用的法律規範之法律後果，仍強制形成當事人間的法律關係。（3）「強行規定」的第二類含義是：法律規定為契約權利義務之創設設置禁止界限，例如租賃期限不得超過20年。此等規範為當事人的契約自由劃定邊界，係對契約自由的內部強制。法律行為中，違反此種意義下的強行規定之部分，係屬無效，例如超出20年的部分係屬無效。（4）「強行規定」的第三類含義是：契約的內容、履行或目的違反了法律創設的行為義務，此係對契約自由的外部強制。①內容不法：法律規定創設的強制或禁止的行為義務，不得被契約內容違反。換言之，法律禁止的行為（殺人、賭博），不得成為契約內容；法律強制的行為（納稅），不得以其不作為成為契約內容。行為義務的來源包括法律對行為的禁止與對契約的禁止。法律行為違反行為義務者，係屬無效。惟法律規定係為保護一方當事人而設時，契約相對無效。當一方當事人不知不法情事時，契約有效，該方有權請求履行利益之損害賠償。②履行不法：除內容不法外，契約在履行階段亦可能違反行為義務（如運輸超載），不法履行的一方無違約救濟權。③目的不法：契約如目的不法（如買刀殺人），當一方明知或應知他方的不法目的時，契約無效；當一方不知且不應當知道他方的不法目的時，契約有效，該方有權請求履行利益之損害賠償。

關鍵字

強行規定；強制規定；禁止規定；民法第71條；契約自由

並列摘要

This thesis focuses on the topic of “mandatory rule”, discussing the validity of juridical acts infringing mandatory rules. Private autonomy is the fundamental principle of civil law. Individuals can form legal relations for themselves on the basis of their own will. Judicial act is a tool to realize private autonomy, so to restrict juridical act, there must be sufficient legitimacy. "Mandatory rule" have multiple meanings: (1) When the validity of a judicial act has other defects such as incapacity, mistake, deceit, duress, unauthorized agency, unauthorized disposition, these rules should not be classified under the concept of "mandatory rules", and these cases should be judged according to the respective norms. When a judicial act does not meet key elements of effectiveness, these key elements of effectiveness should not be classified under the concept of "mandatory rules". In these cases, the judicial acts are not “invalid”, but “not valid”. (2) The first meaning of "mandatory rules" is "legal norms whose legal consequence can not be excluded", which aim at fixing the legal relation between parties. In contrast, "the legal norms whose legal consequence can be excluded" are called "default rules" and "whose legal consequence can be excluded under certain conditions" are called "quasi-mandatory rules". Law may have clearly stipulated whether or not and under what conditions a certain legal norm can be excluded, such a legal provision can be called "altering rule". In the absence of an "altering rule", i.e. when the law fails to provide whether a norm can be excluded, judges should consider whether it is an excessive restriction on contractual freedom, whether parties exclude the principle of good faith and derivative provisions, and whether parties abandon fundamental rights or the excluded provisions aim at protecting the weak. This part of a judicial act which infringe a mandatory rule is invalid. The excluded legal consequence of legal norm still fixes the legal relationship between the parties. (3) The second meaning of "mandatory rules" is the legal rules which provide prohibitive border for the creation of contractual rights and obligations, for example, the lease term should not exceed 20 years. These norms delimit the boundary for the contractual freedom of the parties, and they are internal compulsion to contract freedom. In judicial acts, the part which violates the mandatory provision is invalid, for example, the part that exceeds 20 years is invalid. (4) The third meaning of "mandatory rules" is that the content, performance or purpose of contracts violate the obligation of conduct created by law, which is an external compulsion of contract freedom. (a) Illegal content: the imperative or prohibited obligations of conduct created by law shall not be violated by the content of a contract. In other words, the acts prohibited by law (homicide, gambling) shall not be the content of contracts; as to the acts ordered by law (taxation), the omissions shall not be the content of contracts. The source of obligation of conduct includes the prohibition of act and the prohibition of contract. Judicial acts infringing obligation of conduct are void. However, when the legal provisions are designed to protect one party, the contract is relative invalid. When one party is innocent, the contract is valid and the innocent party has right to claim damages for performance interest. (b) Unlawful performance: In addition to the content of the contract is illegal, contracts may also violate the obligations of conduct (such as transport overload) in the stage of performance, and the party who perform the contract illegally has no right of remedy for breach of contract. (c) Illegal purpose: if the contract is unlawful in purpose (such as buying knife to kill others), the contract is invalid when one party knows or ought to know the other party's unlawful purpose; it is valid when one party does not know and ought not to know the other party's unlawful purpose, and the innocent party has right to claim damages for performance interest.