民法消滅時效制度之基本理論問題：從若干最高法院判決及決議談起

Fundamental Dogmatic Issues of Limitation Period under Civil Code: Analysis Based on Several Judgments and Resolutions of Taiwan Supreme Court

黃松茂(Sung-Mao Huang)

《臺大法學論叢》 49卷2期 (2020/06) Pp. 403-476

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.202006_49(2).0001

摘要

國際契約法文件所引領之整合潮流，亦襲向消滅時效制度。近年來各國民法典就消滅時效制度所進行之修正，隱然顯出一致之趨勢。但在研議我國消滅時效制度之修正需求前，就其規定在我國適用上所生問題，有先予釐清之必要。本文選取數則最高法院判決及決議，涉及時效起算、時效不完成以及時效完成之效力。透過相關實務見解之檢討，得使吾人進一步瞭解，消滅時效絕非純屬技術性規定，消滅時效制度之運作及設計，有賴一定之學理基礎。消滅時效制度之個別規定，經常牽涉民法之其他法律制度，故適用時應特別留意體系性觀點。再者，時效規定具強行性質，不僅拘束交易當事人，亦拘束適用法律之法院。外國法或國際契約法文件或得作為法規繼受之參考，惟不宜逕作解釋現行法之理論依據。本文在結論上認為，依現行消滅時效規定，除侵權行為損害賠償請求權外，時效起算採客觀說。時效開始起算後，除有法定之時效中斷或時效不完成事由外，時效進行不受任何影響。關於時效完成之法律效果，我國民法固採抗辯權發生主義，然債務人自時效完成時起即享有時效利益，而非俟至其積極主張時效抗辯。據此，債務人自請求權罹於時效時起不負遲延責任。債權人以訴請求時效完成後所發生之遲延損害、遲延利息或違約金，並經債務人訴訟上提出時效抗辯者，法院應駁回其訴。

關鍵字

消滅時效 ； 時效起算 ； 時效不完成 ； 時效停止進行 ； 違約金 ； 同時履行抗辯 ； 給付遲延

並列摘要

The trend driven by international contract law instruments is heading toward the extinctive prescription system while revisions being made in civil codes of different countries regarding extinctive prescription in recent years tend to be in line with the said instrument. However, before we consider the necessity of the reform of our civil code on the extinctive prescription system, it is needed to clarify the issues aroused from the practice under current regulations on the limitation period. This article selects several judgments and resolutions from the Supreme Court of Taiwan regarding fundamental issues of the limitation period, such as the commencement of limitation period, the postponement of expiry of limitation period and the effect of limitation. The examination of these judiciary decisions leads us to the understanding that the institute of extinctive prescription shall never be taken as a purely technical regulation, but its function and design rely on the dogmatic foundation. Since the regulations of the limitation period are always closely connected with other legal institutes, its application should be viewed from a systematic perspective. On the other hand, the mandatory character of the limitation period in Taiwanese civil codes not only is binding to both parties in a transaction but also the court. Foreign laws or international contract law instruments may be an essential reference for the local legislation, but it may not be appropriate to be taken as direct sources for the interpretation of the current local laws and regulations. According to the current limitation period regulations, except for the claims from the injury arising from torts, the objective system has been adopted with regard to the commencement of prescription. Once the limitation period has commenced, it should not be affected unless the prescription is interrupted or suspended by any legal cause as stipulated in the law. As to the legal consequence of prescription, it does not extinguish the claim, but only provides the debtor with a right to refuse performance. The debtor's advantage of prescription, however, come into effect not only when he has brought up the right to refuse performance, but already by the completion of limitation period itself. Once the creditor's claim has been prescribed, the debtor is not responsible for his late performance. If the creditor brings an action for damages, interest, and penalty caused by breach of contract after the limitation period expired, and once the debtor raises the prescription defense, the court shall dismiss the creditor's claim for damages, interest, and penalty as mentioned above.

並列關鍵字

limitation period (extinctive prescription) ； commencement of limitation period ； suspension of limitation ； postponement of expiry of limitation period ； penalty ； defense of unperformed contract ； default

參考文獻

邱聰智（2007），〈回到民法第一一三條：為締結法律行為過失責任催生〉，《高大法學論叢》，3卷1期，頁33-102。

顏佑紘（2019），〈2018年民事法發展回顧〉，《臺大法學論叢》，48卷特刊，頁1585-1622。

陳聰富（2019），〈論時效起算時點與時效障礙事由〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，285期，頁5-33。