論自殺致他人房屋成為凶宅之侵權責任及承租人責任

The Torts Liability and Lessee’s Liability in Causing House of Others to Become Haunted House by Committing Suicide

蕭如儀(Ju-Yi Shiau)

指導教授 ： 吳從周

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700854

摘要

有鑑於我國特殊的風俗民情，民眾一般多對曾有人於內自殺身亡之房屋（即俗稱之凶宅）心生畏怖或有所顧忌，此因素更造成此等房屋於交易市場上之價格下跌。因此，除了早期以買賣關係為主之訴訟外，近年來更出現了以自殺行為人侵權行為責任及房屋承租人責任為核心之訴訟類型。本文以後者為主題，透過實務判決之整理與分析，彙整並羅列出個案中所涉法律爭點，由此建立具體的問題意識，再進一步參考國內相關研究成果與比較法上相關規範，對我國特有之凶宅議題加以回答，提供實務將來處理此類案件時的論述參考。
於本文研究之訴訟類型中，主要涉及侵權行為責任及租賃契約責任二大部份，前者又可分為民法第184條第1項前段規定之一般過失侵權行為責任，及民法第184條第1項後段規定之故意背於善良風俗侵權責任二部份；後者則以民法第433條規定之承租人代負責任為中心。關於一般過失侵權行為責任，爭議在於自殺行為人是否具備權利能力、侵害客體為何及行為人之主觀可歸責性；關於故意背於善良風俗侵權責任，爭議在於自殺行為人是否具備故意，及自殺行為是否屬於背於善良風俗之方法；至於承租人代負責任，則涉及民法第433條規定之規範性質，及該條「毀損、滅失」要件之解釋問題。
結論方面，本文認為：首先，自殺行為人於行為時仍具備權利能力，故有成立侵權行為責任之可能；從使用價值與交換價值兩角度觀察，房屋成為凶宅應構成所有權侵害；而責任能力與過失具備與否仍有賴個案事實認定，惟前者應與行為控制能力加以區別，後者則應恪守客觀判斷標準。其次，難認自殺行為人行為時有對房屋損害之意欲或容忍，故一般而言應不具備故意；自殺亦非屬民法第184條第1項後段規定所謂背於善良風俗之方法。最後，民法第433條規定係民法第224條之具體化、確認性規定，因此不以使用房屋之第三人本身成立侵權行為責任為適用前提，然而「毀損、滅失」於構成要件之解釋上僅限於物理上損害，因此房屋成為凶宅無法直接適用該規定，惟此應屬立法者漏未規定之法律漏洞，故應透過類推適用該規定加以填補。

關鍵字

凶宅 ； 自殺 ； 所有權侵害 ； 背於善良風俗 ； 承租人責任 ； 民法第433條規定

並列摘要

Due to the unique cultural custom in Taiwan, it is common that people have fears or concerns about a house in which someone has suicided and passed away. Such house is then labeled as a haunted house. It also causes the price of such houses to drop in the real estate market. Therefore, in addition to earlier cases mainly about selling contracts, cases focusing on torts liability of the person committing suicide and the liability of house lessee are also discussed in recent years. This thesis focuses on the latter cases, aggregates and enumerates legal issues in individual cases through collecting and analyzing judgments of courts, in order to specify concrete questions. On this basis, it further refers to research related in Taiwan as well as norms in comparative laws, in order to answer the unique issue of haunted house in our nation and provide the legal practices with references in future cases.
The cases researched in this thesis are mainly concerned with torts liability and contractual liability of lease. The former can be further divided into liability under the former part of Article 184 Paragraph 1 Civil Code and that under the latter part of Article 184 Paragraph 1 Civil Code, while the latter centers on the liability of lessee under Article 433 Civil Code. Regarding liability under the former part of Article 184 Paragraph 1 Civil Code, whether the person committing suicide still has legal capacity, what object is damaged, and the accountability of such person are at issue. With regards to liability under the latter part of Article 184 Paragraph 1 Civil Code, whether the person committing suicide has intent and whether suicide is a manner against the rules of morals are in question. As for the liability of lessee, issues around the nature of Article 433 Civil Code and the interpretation of “damage or destruction” in this article are involved.
In conclusion, as far as this thesis is concerned, firstly, the person committing suicide still has legal capacity when taking action, so it is possible that the torts liability is established. From both perspectives of using value and exchange value, a house becoming a haunted house should form the violation of the ownership. The capacity of taking civil liability and the negligence of the person depend highly on facts in individual cases, while the former should be distinguished from the capability of controlling one’s behavior and the latter should be decided under objective criteria. Secondly, it is hard to confirm the desire or tolerance of the person in causing damage to the house at the time of action. Furthermore, suicide doesn’t belong to a manner against rules of morals under the latter part of Article 184 Paragraph 1 Civil Code. Last, Article 433 Civil Code is the concrete and confirmed rule of Article 224 Civil Code and therefore the establishment of torts liability of the third person using the house in lease is not a prerequisite. However, “damage or destruction” is restricted to physical damage under interpretation, so Article 433 Civil Code can’t be applied directly to the house becoming a haunted house, while a leak in law exists and should be filled by analogy.

並列關鍵字

haunted house ； suicide ； violation of ownership ； against the rules of morals ； lessee’s liability ； Article 433 of the Civil Code

參考文獻

6. 吳瑾瑜，由所有權角度看受僱人於租賃屋內自殺衍生之僱用人侵權暨承租人契約責任爭議：以最高法院一O三年度台上字第五八四號民事判決為例，月旦裁判時報34期，2015年4月，頁5-14

7. 張晏齡，僱用人責任「僱用關係」要件之研究，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2011年8月

1. 方林根，民法第七十二條「公序良俗」具體化之研究，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2016年7月

3. 吳從周，2013年民事法發展回顧，臺大法學論叢第43卷特刊，2014年11月，頁1127-1186

13. 張義權，跳樓自殺是否為凶宅及其價值減損之探討，土地問題研究季刊第7卷第3期，2008年9月，頁115-122