以給付不能為中心之危險負擔研究——從羅馬法到現代化——

台灣民法第266條、第267條規定，係繼受自1900年德國民法第323條、第324條規定而來，學說稱其為危險負擔之一般規定，並認其屬於雙務契約給付不能之特殊效力。危險負擔之一般規定所欲處理者，係在不可歸責於債務人之事由致給付不能時，債權人應否提出對待給付之問題。依照上開規定，給付不能如係因不可歸責於雙方當事人之事由所致者，債權人之對待給付義務自動消滅。關於危險負擔之問題，羅馬法並未設有一般性之規範方式，個案中債權人是否應提出對待給付，取決於個別契約類型。同時，羅馬契約法中並無嗣後不能概念。嗣後不能概念之形成，可以追溯至歐陸普通法學說就目的不達返還訴權之羅馬法文所為詮釋，後經普魯士一般邦法典、Savigny及Moomsen學說之發展，終於成為給付障礙法制中之法律概念。在對待給付義務存否之問題上，1900年德國民法雖承認債權人之法定解除權，但因受歐陸普通法學說影響，於立法上以歸責事由為界線，嚴格區分危險負擔一般規定及法定解除權。債法現代化之討論過程中，草案雖一度欲刪除給付不能及危險負擔一般規定，最後卻以失敗告終。債法現代化不僅確立給付不能在實體法上消滅債務人原定給付義務，更一併消滅債權人之對待給付義務。在國際契約法文件層次之討論上，是否有必要承認給付不能概念，並以之作為履行請求權之排除事由，容有不同觀點。相較之下，自動消滅對待給付義務之危險負擔一般規定，明顯並不受國際共識所寵愛。在此背景之下，本文透過法律史分析，嘗試詮釋國際契約法文件，試圖為進行中之台灣債編修正提出自己之見解。

關鍵字

危險負擔；給付不能；法定解除；強制履行；目的不達返還訴權

並列摘要

Article 266 and 267 of Taiwan Civil Code, which are recepted from Article 323 and 324 BGB of 1900, are known as the gerneral rules of risk allocation. It has also been known as a special effect of the reciprocal contract, and mainly deals with the question, of whether a party should render his counter-performance when the other cannot render his own performance due to acts of god. According to such rules, if the impossibility is not attributable to the debtor, the creditor is automatically free from his duty of counter-performance. Roman Law did not recognize a gerneral rule of such generality. Rather, the answer depends on different types of contract. On the other hand, Roman Law did not recognize the concept of impossibility either. In fact, the concept of impossibility is developed from condictio causa data causa non secuta. In order to interpret the words “causa non secuta”, jurists of the ius commune tried to differentiate between different kinds of impossibility. Finally, Article 323 German civil code found its predecessor in the State Laws for the Prussian States. Although German civil code of 1900 recognizes statutory rights of termination, it was deeply influenced by the doctrine of ius commue. As a result, German civil code of 1900 distinguished strictly between the general rules of risk allocation and statutory rights of termination. During the discussion of “Schuldrechtsmodernisierung”, appeals to remove the concept of impossibility and the general rules of risk allocation were launched, however, they were in vain. According to the legislator, the concept of impossibility extinct not only the right of specific performance, but also the duty to render counter-performance. At the level of international contract law, it is doubtful whether it is necessary to recognize the concept of impossibility in substantive law just to cope with the problem of specific performance. In contrast, it is obviously not the international approach to automatically terminate the contract, when an impossibility occurs. In such context, this paper try to give some recommendations for Taiwanese “Schuldrechtsmodernisierung”.