銀行辦理客票融資之法律關係 ─以實務操作與司法判決為中心─

The Legal Relationships of discounted note receiables banking -- refer to the practical operation and judgements

王學文(Hsueh-Wen Wang)

指導教授 ： 陳櫻琴

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200900903

摘要

隨著經濟發展迅速，票據已普遍取代部分貨幣支付清算之功能，成為目前經濟社會交易必要手段之一，惟票據法之學理與法條之規定，與銀行業實務操作上未必符合一致，法院判決亦常有諸多疑議，而所衍生之「票據問題」或「問題票據」之爭議，往往過於仰賴主管機關之函令解釋意見為依歸，不乏有被批評「實務領導理論」之嫌。不可諱言者，票據法學有長期被法學界忽略之現象，其原因不外乎在於司法考試比重之微薄，進而忽視票據法理論之探討，有感於近年所引起有關「客票融資」之訴訟，短短數年間，竟高達500件之多，其不外乎銀行介於票據「委託交換清算者」，同時亦得為票據執票人之雙重角色，且不同之法律關係同時顯示在同一張票據上，間接也造成法律關係之複雜化，為避免客票融資問題爭議一再重演，也為避免司法資源的浪費，本文擬藉由客票融資業務，實務操作在票據法上之意義，並以各級法院之判決為中心，分析與歸納，兼顧票據理論及實務，尋求解決之道。
有感於國內文獻對此一實務問題，欠缺完整之研究與討論，本文擬以銀行從業人員之角度，藉由實際辦理銀行「客票融資」業務，及參與訴訟之經驗，分析歸納銀行實務操作及法院判決之爭點，期能使銀行辦理「客票融資」業務，實務操作上兼顧票據法之學理，實踐票據法之基本精神，即促進票據之流通性，讓票據融資業務，提供一個更健全之融資管道。
對於銀行辦理「客票融資」相關業務，歷年來所衍生之爭議，就目前法院之判決，加以整理分析，首先採歸納整理的方式進行，蒐集與本文所探討研究之相關的法院判例、期刊、論文、研究報告等等資料，在分析後加以彙整，相互比較研究，係指在同一個理論架構或研究架構下，檢驗不同制度、政策、情況或個案，並進行比較分析、整合，最後作出結論，為近年來所暴增之「客票融資」訴訟案件，在理論及實務兼顧之基礎下，提出不同的思考空間及方式，供大家参考，並共同尋求解決之道。

關鍵字

備償專戶 ； 客票融資 ； 銀行 ； 票據 ； 法院判決

並列摘要

In the rapid economic development, bonds generally take some places of the currency payment and become one of the essential methods of transaction in the present economic society. But the theory and the stipulations of Negotiable Instruments Law do not conform to the act of actual operations in banking industry. The adjudications of court usually have varies questionable aspects, due to this – it grows the disputes about “the problems of bonds” and “the suspicious bonds” and these are always over rely on the explain letter of regulations by the controlling organizations and be criticized this affair as “the practice management theory”. You cannot deny the fact that the Negotiable Instruments Law is neglected for long time by the Law World. The reason is obviously the few proportion of examination in judiciary for the Negotiable Instruments Law, therefore it been left aside without further discussions. Lately cause for the lawsuit of “Instrument Finance” reached as high as 500 cases during recent years. The main problem is the bank double roles in “the settlement of the exchange” and bonds bearer that occur the different legal relationship simultaneously display on the same bonds and the same party as well. This creates indirectly complication of this legal related matter. In order to avoid “Instrument Finance” disputing happens again and again and to avoid the waste of judicial resources, this article researches the answer for it by Instruments Finance affairs, the meaning of practical operations of Negotiable Instruments Law and take the adjudicates which made by all different level of courts as the centre to analysis and generalize it, pay proper attentions on both theory and practice.

And another cause of the domestic literature about – practice issue, lake of complete researches and discussions. This article provides a well sound pipeline of financing for bonds and finance affairs by the angle of the banking service industry. The actual process “Instrument Finance” affairs experience the participation of lawsuit to analysis and induce the contention of bank practical operations. The adjudications of courts foresee the banking Instruments Finance affairs will process under practical operations and theory of the Negotiable Instruments Law, to live up its spirit of law and advance the popularity of bonds on the market.

The disputes all these years regarding banking “Instruments Finance” affairs will be organized and analyzed by the adjudications by courts. First, carried on by generalize – collect all the articles, periodicals, research reports and the adjudications and so on everything that related to this matter. Second analysis, reorganize all the documents study and compare to each other. This means testify all cases by different systems, policies, situations and single case by case under one theory and study frame. After, continue the comparative analysis and have a through knowledge, finally draws out the conclusion. Under the theory and practice, here provide the different way and aspect of thinking as a reference for everyone and seek the solution together of the dramatically increased “Instruments Finance” lawsuits during recent years.

並列關鍵字

bonds ； the adjudication of court ； bank ； Instruments Finance ； special account of payment prepared

參考文獻

 最高法院89年度臺抗字第437號民事裁定

 最高法院93年台抗字第733號民事裁判

 最高法院50年台上字第2563號民事判決

 最高法院55年度台上字第1873號民事判決

 最高法院78年台上字第485 號民事判決