2016年民事法發展回顧：方法論與釋義學之實務觀察

2015年底迄2017年初之間，最高法院的民事庭非常罕見而值得注意地連續做成四個實質的決議，涉及法院實務上重要的爭議，對民事案件之影響重大，有深入分析研究之必要。分別是：一、承攬標的物有瑕疵時，定作人是否必須以先行使瑕疵擔保請求權為前提，始得主張損害賠償請求權？二、公同共有債權人如何行使權利，能否單獨起訴？三、雙重債權讓與時，第二次的債權讓與究竟是無效抑或效力未定？四、借名登記契約的出名人處分借名之不動產時，究竟是有權處分抑或無權處分？其中第一個決議涉及民法方法論的討論，其餘三個主要為民法釋義學的重要爭議問題。此外，整理最高法院實務見解也發現，違約金究竟是否為民法第146條的從權利，最高法院最近見解出現歧異，有待另外做成重要的決議。

關鍵字

瑕疵擔保；公同共有債權；雙重債權讓與；借名登記

並列摘要

Between the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2017, the Civil Collegial panel of the Supreme Court was rarely and noteworthy to make four substantive resolutions in a row, involving important disputes in court practice, which owned a significant impact on future civil cases and the need for in-depth analysis. First, is the defective product claim a premise for a proprietor before he asserts damage claims? Second, how the obligation owners-in-common exercise the right, is a separate suit allowed? Third, while a dual transfer of obligations, is the second time transfer invalid or ineffective? Fourth, if the nominee of registration of the real estate depose the trust, is it the right to transfer or no right to dispose of? The first resolution mentioned above dealt with the discussion of civil law methodology. The remaining three were mainly regarding important issues of civil law interpretation.