我國法上「債權準占有人」制度之再構成

關於我國民法第310條第2款之「債權準占有人」概念，實務與教科書多認為是由民法第966條之「準占有」概念所延伸而來，惟民法第310條第2款之規範意旨無疑是基於信賴保護原則保護善意之債務人，於債權人與債務人間分配第三人冒領風險之規定，與民法第966條保護準占有人之旨趣大相逕庭，則關於「債權準占有人」概念，即有必要透過信賴保護原則所延伸出來的權利外觀理論加以理解並重構。我國民法第310條第2款乃繼受自日本民法第478條，恰逢日本令和民法對第478條有重大修正，故本文以日本法作為比較法，借鏡日本民法第478條「債權準占有人」概念之演變，與日本學說對於債權人可歸責性之相關討論，反思我國民法第310條第2款。依照權利外觀理論的三大要件「相對人主觀上有值得保護之信賴」、「客觀上有一可供相對人信賴之權利外觀」、「原權利人對前開權利外觀之創造具有一定可歸責性」，我國民法第310條第2款有關債權人之可歸責要件明顯付之闕如，故本文參考同為權利外觀理論一環之表見代理制度，分析應如何將債權人之可歸責性納入我國民法第310條第2款中一併評價。本文認為基於清償之特殊性，債務人之地位較為弱勢，僅須於判斷債務人清償是否有正當理由時，將債權人之可歸責事由一併納入評價即可，於此模式下可針對不同類型之清償，對債權人可歸責性之內涵做出適當的調整，特別是存款交易案型，由於大量交易之特性，若讓銀行於每個個案中均須確認債權人之可歸責性，恐將延滯交易，故將最高法院73年度第11次民事庭會議決議見解以債權人可歸責性之方式重新理解，並融入上開模式中，始得兼顧存款交易案型之特殊性。

關鍵字

信賴保護；權利外觀理論；民法第310條第2款；債權準占有人；清償；表見代理；存款交易

並列摘要

Most of the judicial practice judgments and the scholars' academic books concerned that the concept of the quasi possessor of the creditor’s rights which is regulated by Article 310 Subsection 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan is an extension of the Quasi-possession which is regulated by Article 966 of the Civil Code of Taiwan. However, based on principle of reliance protection, the provision of Article 310 Subsection 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan is to protect the bona fide debtors and to balance the rights and obligations between the risk from creditors and debtors to prevent the risk from the third parties to draw money from the account, which is significantly different from the provision of Article 966 of the Civil Code of Taiwan, which is aim to protect the quasi possessor. Article 310 Subsection 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan succeeds from Article 478 of the Civil Code of Japan. Since the Civil Code of Japan was amended in 2021, this article chooses Japanese Civil Law as comparative law material. By analyzing the evolvement of the concept in the quasi possessor of Article 478 of the Civil Code of Japan and examining the discussion about the accountability of the creditor, tried to rethink t Article 310 of the Civil Code of Taiwan Civil Code. The three elements of the Rechtsschein , that is, the elements of:” The other party’s subjective reliance is worthy of protection’’,’’appearance of having the right(Rechtsschein) exist objectively’’,’’The appearance of having the right(Rechtsschein) is attributable to the original obligee ’’. Article 310 of the Civil Code of Taiwan significantly lacks of the elements accountability of the creditor. Therefore, this article referred the apparent authority, which is also an part of Rechtsschein, and analyzed how to introduce the accountability of the creditor into Article 310 Subsection 2 of the Civil Code of Taiwan Civil Code to do an evaluation. In conclusion, basing on the distinctiveness of performance, this articles holds that the debtor has an unequal status, therefore, it just need to take the responsible cause of the creditor into account when we determine whether the debtor has the justifiable reasons when he perform the debt. Based on the framework, it is possible to adjust the connotation of the responsible cause of the creditor when facing different types of performances, especially on the cases of deposit transactions. Since deposit transactions have the function of dealing in bulk, if the banks need to check each case to see whether the creditor has the accountability that it might cause the delay on transactions. Thus, from the perspective of the accountability of the creditor, this article tried to re-understand the resolution made in 1984 11th Civil Court Session of the Supreme Court and to take it into the way mentioned above, aiming to protect the function the cases of deposit transactions.