自用型生前殯葬服務契約之研究

The Study of Self-use Preneed Contract

張美眉(Mei-Mei Chang)

指導教授 ： 黃詩淳

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2015.01458

摘要

本文所探討之主題為「自用型生前殯葬服務契約」，其特殊性之一在於契約內容涉及消費者就自己殯葬事宜（遺體處分）之安排，亦即該契約代表死者本人之「遺願」。惟目前我國實務與學說通說，多將「遺體」與「遺產」、「繼承」綁定掛勾，認為遺體之所有權因繼承而歸屬於繼承人所公同共有，在此論述脈絡下，死者對於遺體可說毫無處分空間，在死者遺願與繼承人（生者）之意願發生衝突時，相較美國與日本兩國，我國現行法制對死者遺願之保障相當薄弱。本文認為，「殯葬自主權」涉及人格權與內在信仰自由保護，應受到高度之保障，死者對於殯葬事務之安排，若不違背公序良俗或其他強制或禁止規定，且於現實上亦具可行性時，即不應僅係道德上之誡命，對於生者應具有法律上的拘束力。在現行法制欠缺對遺體處分權統一之法規範，且現行實務與學說將「遺體」與「遺產」連結之見解有所不妥之情況下，立法論上最適切之作法應是單獨就遺體處分權設置規範，可參酌美國立法例明文規定遺體處分權人順位，加入死者得指定特定人選享有遺體處分權（意定遺體處分權人）與死者對殯葬事務指示具法律上拘束力之規範，如此亦才能確保自用型生前殯葬服務契約之履行。
　　自用型生前殯葬服務契約之另一特性為「契約履行時點，締約當事人一方已死亡」，本文接續檢討此特性是否對契約存續有所影響。由於原締約當事人死亡，而其繼承人繼受其法律地位成為新契約當事人，此時「繼承人能否解除或終止契約」以及「繼承人得否透過拋棄繼承而免於負擔契約費用」便成為問題。就前者而言，乃涉及被繼承人與繼承人之利益衡平，本文認為除契約目的無法達成之情況外，若契約中被繼承人就其殯葬事宜之花費為合理，便不應該允許繼承人隨後恣意架空死者生前對殯葬事務之安排，並且，因遺體處分權歸屬於死者，若契約之內容不違背公序良俗或其他強制或禁止規定，現實上亦具有可行性時，即不應允許繼承人得以任意解除或終止該契約；就後者而言，因自用型生前殯葬服務契約費用具被繼承人債務與喪葬費用之雙重性質，因此仍需就喪葬費用之給付義務人進行探討，本文認為，喪葬費用應與遺體處分權相結合，在遺體處分權歸屬死者之情況下，喪葬費用即應為死者遺產負擔，遺體處分權人則負有先行墊付喪葬費用、再回頭向遺產請求償還之義務。因此繼承人即使拋棄繼承，若其為遺體處分權人，則仍應先墊付喪葬費用，此與拋棄繼承無涉。
　　最後，就自用型生前殯葬服務契約之履行部分，我國現行法制設計上存有「契約執行人」之角色，惟在繼承人與被繼承人意見相左時，契約執行人除道德上勸說之外，別無有效手段得以確保契約之履行；就契約執行人與殯葬禮儀服務業者間，現行契約執行人制度設計，亦無法達成「監督、確保契約履行」之目的。本文認為，應強制要求自用型生前殯葬服務契約須選定契約執行人，其資格應有所限制，還必須明文賦予契約執行人「契約」與「遺體」兩面向之權利，尤其應承認契約執行人享有遺體處分權，方能使契約執行人有權請求遺體之交付，使死者之遺願真正落實。

關鍵字

自用型生前殯葬服務契約 ； 生前契約 ； 殯葬自主 ； 遺體 ； 喪葬費用 ； 契約執行人

並列摘要

The subject of this thesis is "self-use preneed contract", one feature of this contract is that the context is about the contractor’s own funeral arrangements (in other words, it is about the disposition of their own remains); therefore, the self-use preneed contract itself represents the final wishes of the decedent. However, our law practice and theory consider human remains as inheritance and associate them with succession, so the human remains are owned in common by the heirs. By this thread, the decedents can barely control their remains. When there are conflicting wishes between the decedent and their heir, our current legal system provides less protection to the final wishes of the decedent than United States and Japan. This thesis considered "the right of people's funeral self-determination” should be highly protected, because it involves the people’s personal rights and their freedom of religious belief. Accordingly, if the decedent’s prearrangement of funeral affairs is not against public policy or morals public, nor violates an imperative or prohibitive provision of the act, and it is practicable, it should be legally binding rather than just kind of moral request. Since our current legal system lack of unity regulation of the disposition of human remains and the opinions of our law practice and theory on human remains are inappropriate, for ensure the fulfillment of the self-use preneed contract, this thesis considers the proper legislative policy should be enact a unity regulation of the disposition of human remains, which includes statutory order of the disposition of human remains (refers to American statute), the decedent’s right to designate an agent and the legally binding of the funeral directions made by the decedent.
The other feature of self-use preneed contract is that the contractor was already deceased at the performance time of the contract; the following of this thesis was about whether the decease of the contractor terminates the contract itself. Besides, after the contractor deceased, his/her heir will assume all the rights and obligations of the decedent at the time of the commencement of the succession and then become new contractor, under the circumstances, the topics about “can the heirs rescind or terminate the contract” and “can the heirs avoid paying the price of the contract by waiving his/her right to an inheritance” were also interesting. The former question is about the balance of benefits between the decedent and their heir, except the situation that the intention of the contract cannot be achieved, this thesis considered if the cost of the contract was reasonable and the context of the contract was practicable and not against public policy or morals public, nor violates an imperative or prohibitive provision of the act, the heirs should not have the right to overthrow decedent’s prearrangement. The latter question is about the legal nature of the price of the self-use preneed contract, because its dual nature: the debt of the decedent and the funeral expenses, we need to discuss who has the obligation to pay the funeral expenses. This thesis considered funeral expenses should combine with the right to control disposition of remains, since the decedent should has the right to control his/her own remains, the funeral expenses should be paid by the estate. The person who takes control of the disposition under the law is liable to pay reasonable costs of the funeral expenses in advance, and then seeks to recover the costs from the decedent's estate.
Finally, to ensure the fulfillment of self-use preneed contract, our current legal system creates the role as “contract executor”. However, when there are conflicting wishes between the decedent and their heir, the executor has no effective means other than moral request to ensure the fulfillment. Faces the funeral firm, the current legal system cannot reach the purpose of "supervision and ensure the enforcement of the contract". This thesis considered the executor was essential to self-use preneed contract, their qualifications should be limited, and should grant the authority about the contract and the right to control disposition of remains. As the executor gain the right to control disposition of remains, the final wishes of the decedent can be truly fulfilled.
This thesis discussed about the above-mentioned topics and made some suggestions, hoping to provide some contribution to the whole study.

並列關鍵字

self-use preneed contract ； prearrangement ； human remains ； funeral expenses ； contract executor

參考文獻

1.王文宇（2009）。〈契約定性、漏洞填補與任意規定：以一則工程契約終止的判決為例〉，《臺大法學論叢》，38卷2期，頁131-186。

5.邱玟惠（2009）。《屍體之法律性質：物權與人類尊嚴之二元結構初探》，〈臺大法學論叢〉，第38卷第4期，頁335-383。

16.黃健彰（2010）。《一般優先權的類型》，〈國立中正大學法學集刊〉，30期，頁167-208

17.黃詩淳（2014）。〈涉訟榮民遺囑之特徵與法律問題〉，《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》，43卷3期，頁587-639。

21.潘志鵬（2003）。〈論台灣現行的生前契約現況與展望〉，《中華民國禮儀協會》，第十期，92年5月號，頁12-18，亦載於http://60.244.127.66/big5/chinesefuneral/ae04/20041210171259.doc。