摘要
我國於2012年所制定之家事事件法創設間接強制金制度，使裁判法院或執行法院在給付家庭生活費、扶養費或贍養費之裁判或執行事件中，得依職權或債權人聲請，裁定命債務人於未遵期履行時，給付強制金予債權人。間接強制金係間接強制之執行方法，與怠金類同，藉由預告債務人財產上不利益，促使其自行履行債務。此制度之設立更表明傳統之間接強制補充性理論已不適合用以解釋我國之強制執行制度，明確肯認間接強制方法有擴張適用於金錢債務執行之可能。有鑒於此制度於實務上運作尚未普遍落實，本文擬透過比較法之研究，嘗試對此制度提出妥適之解釋論與建構必要之立法論。 關於強制金之定性，我國與日本法制度相同，均認間接強制金屬於執行方法，而非法國法上所謂之強制方法。與法國法及日本法有力學說相同，立法理由中明確表示強制金係違反執行名義或履行命令之制裁金，與損害賠償並不相同。關於強制金之歸屬，不同於法國與日本制度，在我國已存在歸屬於國家之怠金制度之現行法下，應基於實體法非訟化與債權人協力國家履行任務之觀點，肯認強制金應歸屬於債權人。再者，關於強制金制度之必要性與正當性，於此制度上已全面打破權利判斷機關與執行機關之二分論，肯認由執行機關作成執行名義，以及由權利判斷機關施加執行方法。參考法國及日本法之解釋論，強制金制度形成中，最主要之要求在於避免苛酷執行與確保實效性二者，我國規定有決定強制金額度之基準、強制金額度上限、事後職權撤銷裁定與情事變更等立法措施，以避免苛酷執行。另一方面，如同法國法上肯認由裁判法院於作成本案裁判之同時發令強制金，並且不採取日本法上強制金充當於損害賠償之規定，以確保其實效性。 就強制金之適用債務範圍而言，我國目前法律明文限定於家庭生活費、扶養費或贍養費之事件，惟透過適當之解釋論，不論係命以何種方法給付之法院酌定事件或依協議請求事件，皆應肯認有強制金之適用。而未來之修法方向，得參考法國法與日本法規定，全面擴張強制金之適用債務範圍，賦予法官廣泛裁量權於個案中選擇適當之執行方法。 於我國之強制金制度上，存有裁判上酌定加給強制金與執行上命令給付強制金二種，前者乃係參考民事訴訟法小額程序之加給金額規定而來，後者則係參考日本法而具有較完備之規定。不論係裁判上強制金或執行上強制金，其作成皆須符合強制金作成之要件，須考量決定強制金額度之因素，尤其係債務人之資力。於強制金裁定作成後，有情事變更時，法院亦得變更或撤銷強制金裁定，以確保債務人支付能力之要件存續。而間接強制金裁定本身即為執行名義，於債務人逾期不履行債務時，債權人得將此強制金裁定作為執行名義聲請強制執行。 最後，關於我國現在及往後若擴大間接強制金適用範圍之運作，參考日本法制度之實踐，解釋如下：首先，應肯定間接強制金與其他執行方法之併用，提供債權人多元之執行方法選擇，更能確保強制執行之實效性。再者，關於間接強制金之限制，在無法僅依債務人意思實行，需要第三人同意或協力之債務，若債務人並未盡力得到第三人協力，則肯認間接強制金之適用，以促使債務人對取得第三人協力採取一切期待可能之行為。另外，強制金得適用於保全程序，依據假處分或暫時處分裁定作成間接強制金裁定後，執行名義失效或強制金裁定被撤銷之情形，就債權人因強制金履行所得利益，肯認債務人得依不當得利規定請求返還。此外，於不行為債務之執行中，債務人有違反行為之可能性即可命間接強制金裁定，不待現實上有違反行為發生即得作成強制金，以確保債權得以確實實現。
並列摘要
The system of fine of indirect enforcement is established in the Family Act that was implemented in 2012. In the ruling or executing the payment for living expenses of the household, for expenses of maintenance or for alimony, the ruling court and the executing court may, upon the creditor’s motion or on its own initiative, by a ruling order the debtor to pay an amount of mandatory payment to the creditor when the payment is not made within the time limit. This mandatory payment, named the fine of indirect enforcement, is one of the methods of the indirect enforcement. The fine of indirect enforcement, similar to default surcharge, is able to urge the debtor to perform obligations by announcing the disadvantage on property. The establishment of this system not only indicates that the theory of supplemental indirect enforcement has not been applied in the procedure of compulsory enforcement in Taiwan, but also admits that indirect enforcement could be adopted in mandatory enforcement. Considering the fact that this system has not been commonly used in legal practice, this thesis is based on the view of comparative law and aims to propose appropriate ways to interpret as well as to legislate this system. Regarding the nature of fine of indirect enforcement, it is considered as one of the methods to execute the obligation as the Japanese system, rather than a method to constraint the obligation in French system. The legislative explanation indicates that fine of indirect enforcement is a punishment which will happen when the debtor violates a writ of execution or an order of performance, and it is different from the compensation. Unlike French law or Japanese law, because the default surcharge has already existed in Taiwan, based on the non-contentiousness hearing of substantive law and the assistance of governmental mission, the fine of indirect enforcement should be assigned to the creditor. Furthermore, concerning the necessity and reasonableness of the system, instead of the dichotomy between the case-judging institution and the obligation-executing institution, this system allows the executing court to issue a writ of execution and the ruling court to add a method of execution in its decision. Referring to the interpretation of either French or Japanese system, the important requirements of fine of indirect enforcement are how to avoid harsh execution and ensure effectiveness. In order to prevent from harsh execution, the Family Act stipulates factors of determining the amount, the limitation of the amount, revoking the ruling on court’s own initiative, and the regulation of changed circumstances. Besides, to assure effectiveness, instead of acting as a tool of compensation as the regulations in Japanese law, the Taiwanese system allows the case-judging court to make a decision of fine of indirect enforcement as in French law. About the applicable scope of fine of indirect enforcement, the Family Act provides that the scope is limited to payment for living expenses of the household, for expense of maintenance or for alimony. No matter how to pay the payment in these cases, whether to claim for the amount of payment determined by court, or to claim for the payment according to an agreement, all aforesaid cases are included in the applicable scope. Referring to the French and Japanese system, this thesis dedicates to broaden the applicable scope to all kinds of cases, and to grant courts the discretion of selection of suitable methods in the future. There are two kinds of fine of indirect enforcement existing in current law. One is the fine determined by case-judging court on a ruling, and the other is the fine ordered by executing court. The former is referring to the system of additional payment in small-claim proceeding while the latter referring to Japanese law is equipped with more complete regulations. When the court makes a ruling of these fine of indirect enforcement, it has to evaluate all requirements and factors to determine the amount of fine, especially the financial situation of the debtor. If there is a fundamental change of circumstances after ruling on fine of indirect enforcement, the court can modify or revoke the said ruling in order to ensure the debtor’s solvency. The ruling on fine of indirect enforcement is used as a writ of execution. When the debtor doesn’t perform the obligation, the creditor can motion for compulsory execution in accordance with the ruling. Lastly, concerning the operation of the system nowadays or in the future, referring to the legal practice of Japanese system, it can be interpreted as follows. First, the court can adopt two or more kinds of methods of execution for the purpose of various selections of execution and effectiveness of execution. Moreover, regarding the restriction of fine of indirect enforcement, if the obligation is unable to perform by the debtor himself and needs the assistance from others, he has to try his utmost to get the assistance. Otherwise, the ruling on fine of indirect enforcement will be made, in order to impel the debtor to adopt every action expected. Besides, the fine of indirect enforcement is applicable for provisional remedies proceeding, and it may be ordered in accordance with ruling on provisional injunctions or injunctions. If a writ of execution becomes invalid or a ruling on fine of indirect enforcement is revoked, the creditor may claim the debtor to return the benefit from the ruling on fine of indirect enforcement in accordance with the provisions concerning Unjust Enrichment. Furthermore, about the execution of forbearing obligation, the court can make a ruling on fine of indirect enforcement in advance when there is the possibility that the debtor will violate the obligation, even if the actual violation of the obligation has not existed, in order to ensure that the obligation could be really performed.
參考文獻
7. 林家如，我國懲罰性賠償金制度之再反省──以消費者保護法第51條為中心，國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文，2014年1月。
3. 許士宦，消費者債務清理程序之更生機能，債務清理法之基本構造，2009年。
4. 許士宦，金錢及物交付執行之間接強制，家事審判與債務執行，台北：新學林，2013年。
10. 許士宦，強制執行之財產開示制度，家事審判與債務執行，台北：新學林，2013年。
一、中文部分（依作者姓氏筆畫排列）
延伸閱讀
- 許士宦（2008）。金錢及物交付執行之間接強制。臺大法學論叢，37(2)，151-188。https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2008.37.02.04
- 劉立倫、沈健群（1994）。經驗效果對判斷行為影響之研究－以國軍現金內部控制判斷為例。國防管理學報，15(2)，21-30。https://doi.org/10.29496/JNDM.199407.0003
- 高全國（2009）。金控集團利害關係人授信以外交易之研究〔碩士論文，國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2009.01364
- 王美玲（2015）。金控法規範的利害關係人非授信交易之探討〔碩士論文，國立中央大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=U0031-0412201512045484
- （2017）。Related Information。公共藝術簡訊，(136)，34-35。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20140328001-201705-201704190014-201704190014-34-35