第三人融資型分期付款交易法律問題之研究—以抗辯接續原則之適用為中心

Research on Legal Matters Related to the transaction of Installment by Third Party to finance — Focus on The Application of “Einwendungsdurchgriff”

謝良駿(Liang-Jiun Shie)

指導教授 ： 陳自強

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2012.10549

摘要

基於債之關係相對性原則，於第三人融資型分期付款交易中，如企業經營者未能履行消費契約時，消費者將無法以消費契約對抗企業經營者之抗辯事由拒絕返還借款。然而，相較於傳統型分期付款交易，第三人融資型分期付款交易存有三角關係交易風險分配不均之危險。於此情形，因消費者未能認識其將喪失以消費契約抗辯事由拒絕付款權利，消費者毋寧將承受較多之交易風險而陷於較不利之地位。有鑑於此，為調整消費者弱勢地位之狀態，以及確保企業經營者之履約能力，自應透過民法第1條以歐盟消費者信用指令（2008/48/EC）第15條與德國民法第359條等規定之外國立法例作為法理，以及民法第148條第2項誠實信用原則之規定，賦予消費者有抗辯之權利，肯定抗辯接續（抗辯援用）原則於第三人融資型分期付款交易適用之必要。
抗辯接續原則之適用，應以消費者與企業經營者間之「消費契約」，以及消費者與金錢貸與人間之「金錢借貸契約」具有結合關係為前提（結合契約）。結合關係係指金錢借貸契約旨在提供全部或一部借款以清償消費契約之價金（目的拘束性），且二契約具有經濟上一體性者。消費者抗辯之提出，復以消費者於消費契約有抗辯事由、金錢貸與人於締約時可合理預見抗辯事由將來之存在，且消費者已向企業經營者行使權利無效果者為要件。消費者對抗金錢貸與人請求之範圍，僅以消費契約抗辯事由所得主張者為限；原則上不容許消費者進一步向金錢貸與人請求返還已清償之借款。消費契約如因得撤銷、無效而消滅者，具有結合關係之金錢借貸契約則因此失其效力。
最後，本文將嘗試提出消費者保護法部分條文修正草案，以及「消費性無擔保貸款定型化契約應記載事項」草案第14點與「遞延（預付）型商品或服務無法提供時之消費性貸款處理機制聲明書」草案之修正建議，供行政院消費者保護委員會與行政院金融監督管理委員會參酌。

關鍵字

抗辯接續 ； 抗辯延伸 ； 債之（關係）相對性 ； 消費者信用 ； 分期付款 ； 結合關係 ； 結合契約 ； 經濟上一體性 ； 遞延（預付）型（性）商品或服務 ； 信用卡

並列摘要

Based on theprivity of contract doctrine, in the installment transaction by third party to finance, consumers would not be able to refuse to repay the lender the loan by using the counterpleas that entrepreneur failed to perform the consumer contracts when the entrepreneur cannot perform the consumer contract. Nevertheless, compared to the traditional installment transaction, the installment transaction by third party to finance has the danger of unbalanced transaction risk in its tripartite relationship. In this situation, consumers would bear more transaction risk and be in an adverse position, as they’re not able to notice that they would lose their right to refuse to repay the loan by using the counterpleas that entrepreneur failed to perform the consumer contracts. Therefore, in order to adjust consumers’ unfavorable status and ensure entrepreneur’s capabilities of performance of contracts, we should ponder applying foreign legislation, such as Directive 2008/48/EC Article 15 and German Civil Code Article 359 as legal principles, according to the jurisprudence in ROC Civil Code Article 1, and use the principle of good faith and fair dealing in ROC Civil Code Paragraph 2 of Article 148 to confirm the necessary of the application of “Einwendungsdurchgriff” in the installment transaction by third party to finance.

“Einwendungsdurchgriff” should be appliedwhen a consumer contract between the consumer and the entrepreneur and a loan contract between the consumer and the lender are linked (linked contract). The “linked contract” means that the purpose of loan contract is to provide fully or partially serves to finance the consumer contract (binding of purpose). And that both contracts constitute an economic unit. Consumer’s objections under the consumer contract, lender’s reasonable foreseeing the existence of the objections as loan contract being entered into, and failing of the cure which the consumer may demand are essential for exercising consumer’s right to object.

The extent of objections of the consumer under the loan contract against the lender is what the consumer can object under the consumer contract; the consumer can’t further request the lender to repay the loan discharged by the consumer in principle. The linked loan contract will be eliminated, as the consumer contract is avoided or void.

Finally, we try to raise an Amendment of Consumer Protection Law and a suggestion about Article 14 of the Draft of “Mandatory Provisions to be Included in and Prohibitory Provisions of Standard Form Contract for Consumer Unsecured Loan” to The Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) and The Consumer Protection Commission (CPC), Executive Yuan for reference.

並列關鍵字

Einwendungsdurchgriff ； privity of contract ； consumer credit ； installment ； linked contract ； economic unit ； commercial unit ； credit card

參考文獻

5. 王澤鑑，法律思維與民法實例—請求權基礎理論體系，自版，2000年9月四刷。

18. 行政院消費者保護委員會編，消費者保護研究（十五），行政院消費者保護委員會，2009年12月。

55. 劉春堂，消費者保護與消費者法，行政院消費者保護委員會，2000年11月增訂一版。

2. 江銘宏，融資分期付款買賣之法律關係，法令月刊第33卷第10期，1982年10月，第14-16頁。

3. 林誠二，再論誠實信用原則與權利濫用禁止原則之機能—最高法院八十八年度台上字第二八一九號判決評釋，台灣本土法學雜誌第22期，2001年5月，第36-61頁。