從一則案例論支票變造之風險分擔－兼論民商合一下之法律適用

票據爲支付工具之一種，具有代替金錢給付等優點，惟其利用亦產生成本，例如因第三人僞造變造票據，錯誤付款導致損失。當第三人杳無蹤影或無力賠償時，即轉爲制度使用人間應如何分擔損失的問題。「崇友/崇反公司案」，即爲適例。本文認爲該項判決之法理論證與學說闡釋，尚有未洽；但能自票據法法理出發而爲立論，仍有值得肯定之處。本文從票據法、民法、經濟分析等觀點切入，指陳現行規定之缺失，並建議從經濟分析角度建立風險分擔法制。由於商法與民法性質有異，故應避免機械性地套用概念或法條；本文再就民商合一原則下，當票據法規定付之闕如時，應如何適用民法提出分析。本文進一步試擬民商合一下之法律適用原則如下：首先，於商法（含票據法）設有規定者，優先適用系爭規定。當商法無規定時，得考慮適用民法規定，惟應先探究民法之解釋結果是否符合商法蘊含之立法意旨及設計原理；若兩者並無矛盾，自可直接適用民法規定。然而，若民法規定與商法原理有所衝突時，則應依商法原則，將民法規定之要件調整至與商法規範一致。抑有進者，如民法規定顯與商法規定相扞挌時，宜捨棄民法而回歸商法，回歸商法立法目的與法理－甚至經濟分析觀點－妥適地解決紛爭。

關鍵字

支付工具；民商合一；票據變造；付款人注意義務；支票占有；利益第三人契約；經濟分析；風險分擔

並列摘要

This article conducts a case study on how to allocate risk with respect to altered and forged checks. It first analyzes a Supreme Court Case, which involved an employee's forgery of a check payable to the employer. Applying several Code Code provisions, some judgments and scholars have taken the position that the payor bank should be held responsible for the loss. However, this article argues that this position would not only frustrate the legislative purposes of the Negotiable Instruments Code, but also cause inefficient results. Hence, when the loss is caused by a responsible employee, the Law should cast the loss on the employer. This is because the payee-employer is normally in a better position to prevent fraudulent indorsements by its own employees-through reasonable care in the selection or supervision of employees-than the payor bank. In addition, as the judgment indicates, the payor bank had exercised due care in examining the altered and forged check. A widely recognized principle under Taiwanese Law is that the Civil Code and the Commercial Code should be integrated. It seems to follow that if the Commercial Code is silent on a commercial dispute, it is appropriate to automatically apply the provisions of Civil Code to resolve the dispute, without any modifications. As illustrated in this Case, however, this principle, if carried to extremes, would produce bad results. Based on the foregoing analysis, this article proposes a ”modified application rule,” pursuant to which only Civil Code provisions that ”fit” the legislative purposes of the Commercial Code should be applied. This article argues that, only by adopting this modified application rule, the integrity of commercial laws can be maintained.