通常法定夫妻財產制之研究 ─以剩餘財產分配請求權為中心

A study on the statutory marital property regime– focus on the right to the claim for the distribution of the remainder of the statutory marital property

張雅菁(Ya-Jing Chang)

指導教授 ： 郭振恭

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2009年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu200901194

摘要

論文提要
本文首先就夫妻財產所有權之歸屬、自由處分金作檢討，蓋上開二者，影響了夫妻剩餘財產分配請求權之計算範圍。至於修法前尚存未解之爭議，本文亦予以討論。
最重要者，為剩餘財產分配請求權之行使，民法親屬編施行法第六條之二不僅明定本條為聯合財產新舊法之過渡規定，更明定「婚姻關係存續中取得之原有財產，於修正施行後視為夫或妻之婚後財產」，其立法理由亦同此意旨。觀察現行實務，係依民法第一○三○條之一修正生效日期區分，使得民國七十四年六月五日後取得之婚後財產方有剩餘財產分配請求權之適用，影響妻與妻(夫與夫)間之不平等。所幸，司法院釋字第六二○號解釋文公布，揭示只要聯合財產關係消滅在民法第一○三○條之一於民國七十四年六月五日生效後時，除因繼承或無償取得之財產外，凡夫妻於婚姻關係存續中取得，不區分此類財產取得於民國七十四年六月四日前或同年月五日之後，均列入剩餘財產分配之範圍。
然引發諸多爭議，特別是關於法律是否溯及既往與其解釋方法。本文認為其與法律溯及既往之適用原則無涉，僅是一種採取客觀文義解釋之必然結果。準此，尚不致產生對夫妻勞力所得並未一致對待等問題。並且，解釋文係經法益衡量後，選擇客觀文義解釋，並提示爭議之來源是解釋方法之選擇所致，並非獨尊客觀文義解釋，因之，無庸於此討論法律解釋方法究應為主觀說或客觀說。倘認為因而在勞力所得方面產生不公平之結果，本於法律安定性之考量，以不溯及既往為原則，溯及既往為例外，應另外規範列入剩餘財產分配之範圍。

關鍵字

剩餘財產分配請求權 ； 通常法定夫妻財產制

並列摘要

Abstract

This paper is intended to explore ownership over matrimonial assets and married couples’ disposable cash. The two issues affect the claimable amount of residual matrimonial assets divided between a married couple. This paper also looks into disputes unsolved before amendment.

Most importantly, the Enforcement Rules of Family Law in the Civil Code, Article 6-2 not only expressly provides that Article 6-2 shall provide provisions regarding exercising the right to claim a share of residual matrimonial assets during the transition from the old law of joint property to the new law thereof, but expressly provides that all property acquired during the course of a marriage shall be deemed property acquired by the husband or wife after marriage pursuant to the post-amendment law based on the same grounds for legislation. In practice, the effective date of amendment of Article 1030-1 of the Civil Code is the cut-off date for exercising the right to claim a share of residual matrimonial assets; hence, the aforesaid legislative amendment that provides a legal basis for exercising the right to claim a share of residual matrimonial assets acquired only after June 5, 1985 contributes to inequality between the husband and wife. Luckily, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 620 holds that whatever property acquired during the course of a marriage (except property acquired by inheritance or acquired without payment of consideration) shall be deemed property attributed to residual matrimonial assets, whether the property at issue was acquired before June 4, 1985 or after June 5, 1985, provided that the relationship pertaining to joint property was extinguished after June 5, 1985 – the effective date of amendment of Article 1030-1 of the Civil Code.

However, the aforesaid legislative amendment causes plenty disputes, and especially the dispute as to whether the law should apply retrospectively and the interpretation thereof. This paper is of the opinion that the aforesaid legislative amendment has nothing to do with the principles of retrospective application of legislation; instead, it is just the necessary outcome of an approach to objective literal interpretation. Hence, so far differential treatment of fruits of husband’s and wife’s labor has not occurred. Moreover, after giving considerations to the law and benefits, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 620 adopts objective literal interpretation and suggests that the disputes originate from the selection of methodology of legal interpretation rather than preoccupation with objective literal interpretation. Hence, this paper finds it unnecessary to determine whether the methodology of legal interpretation should be subjective or objective. Where it’s believed that the aforesaid legislative amendment causes inequality between husband and wife regarding the fruits of their labor, the non-retrospective principle should prevail so as to ensure stability of legislation; and the retrospective principle may apply to an exception, which should be otherwise provided in the laws pertaining to distribution of residual matrimonial assets.

並列關鍵字

Statutory Marital Property Regime ； Right to Claim for the Distribution

參考文獻

17.李立如，司法審查之表述功能與社會變革：以性別平等原則在家庭中的落實為例，國立台灣大學法學論叢，第三七卷第一期，頁31-78(2008.03)

30.郭振恭，民法親屬編施行法第條之一之適用─評最高法院八十七年度台上字第二三一六號民事判決，月旦法學雜誌，第五四期，頁161-166(1999.11)

41.陳鵬光，夫妻於民國七十四年六月四日前取得之財產應否納入剩餘財產分配之範圍內─中間報告：以最高行政法院九十一年三月廿六日庭長法官聯席會議決議之研析為中心，萬國法律，第一二六期，頁26-40(2002.12)

26.林秀雄，剩餘財產之分配與不真正溯及─最高行政法院九十年度判字第六七一號判決評釋，台灣本土法學雜誌，第三十期，頁61-77(2002.01)

47.葛克昌，剩餘財產分配與遺產稅─最高行政法院九十年度判字第六七一號判決評釋，台灣本土法學雜誌，第二八期，頁35-55(2001.11)