透過您的圖書館登入
IP:34.205.246.61
  • 學位論文

契約違反解消權要件之研究-重大債務不履行要件之建立-

A Study on Requirements for Terminating the Contract: Establishing the“Fundamental Nonperformance” as A New Requisite

指導教授 : 陳聰富

摘要


本文目標,在重新檢視我國民法債編總則契約解消相關之規範內容,並在檢討之後,提出未來修法建議,契約解消權之要件,應揚棄「歸責事由」,而改採「重大債務不履行」之標準。 各國立法例在契約解消權要件上之設計,已與我國民法債編總則之規範有極大差異。契約解消權之要件,各立法例紛紛捨棄「歸責事由」之設計,而以更為客觀之標準,即「重大債務不履行」,作為契約解消權發動之要件。其中理由,不外乎考量債權人、債務人間利益之平衡、避免債權人以「己身利益之保護」以外之動機解消契約,以及明瞭契約解消之目的在於使當事人脫離契約之拘束,而無須探就非難性的要素。 經過觀察外國立法例之差異所得到之衝擊,筆者重新從三個不同角度,省思我國契約解消權規範上之設計: 一、契約解除權,筆者觀察實務與學說意見,發現我國實務判決在歸責事由之操作上,有「歸責事由判斷模糊化」與「故意過失原則偏離」等種種現象,歸責事由之操作使得債權人過於容易逃離契約,對於債務人未必公平,另一方面,若從嚴認定,則對債權人保護不週,而有改採「歸責事由非要件論」之必要。另外,在觀察我國實務之判決之後,筆者以為,「重大債務不履行」替代「歸責事由」為契約解除之要件應屬合理。蓋我國實務判決當中,透過類推適用民法第359條之規定、誠信原則、契約目的不達等方式,介入契約解除權之發動,其本質乃與外國立法例所謂「重大債務不履行」相同,可見未來法律變更之正當性與可行性。 二、期前解約權,本文觀察實務判決及學說意見,可知規範設計上,存在一般性期前解約之需要。然檢視過我國民法之規範及學說意見,不論是給付遲延、不完全給付,以及拒絕給付,在解釋上,皆無法徹底滿足上述期前解約之需要,從而立法論是唯一的解決方式。並且在重新立法之前提下,期前解約之要件設計,也不應只侷限於過往學者所探討之拒絕給付,而應以期前顯可預見重大債務不履行為要件,如此一來,方能在實際情況中妥適地保護債權人,以及避免社會資源之浪費。 三、契約終止權,我國民法債編總則之規範上,未有一般性終止權之規定,進而產生法律漏洞急待填補。縱觀國內外實務判決與學說意見,可見兩種填補之模式,一為類推適用債編總則契約解除之規定,另一為總體類推適用債各終止權之規定。在比較兩種模式之說理依據後,本文以為應採總體類推適用債各終止權之規定方屬合理,即僅有在重大事由之違反,債權人方得為繼續性契約之非常終止(理由終止)。 綜上所述,本文觀察各國立法例,省思契約解消權要件之設計,並從解除權、期前解約、終止權三個面向,檢討我國規範重新修正之必要性及可行性。最後得出一致之結論,不論從何種面向,皆應揚棄「歸責事由」,而改採「重大債務不履行」之標準。盼此結論,能成為未來債法修正之參考。

並列摘要


This thesis aims at examining the general rules of terminating the contract in Taiwanese Civil Code. After doing that, we can find out the rule should be reconstructed as abandoning “fault” and adopting the new requirement which is “ fundamental breach”. Referring to foreign legislative examples, we can find out the remarkable difference between our rules and the others. Foreign legislative examples have adopted the requirement, “fundamental non-performance”, instead of fault. The reason behind this is considering the profit between creditor and debtor, preventing creditor terminating the contract from selfish motives and figuring out the real purpose of terminating contract is just breaking away the binding of contract, we should not blame on any one. After the legislative impact, this thesis has reconsidered the rules of terminating contract from three angles: After analyzing the recent judicial decisions on terminating contract, the empirical studies shows that the application of rules of fault is becoming vague and deviating from the principle of negligence. It would cause that the creditor could escape from contract easily and it’s unfair to the debtor. On the other hand, we found that the court usually limited the right to cancel contract by principle of good faith and fair dealing or other reasons. The essence or concern behind this kind of limitation is identical to the “fundamental breach”. Accordingly, this thesis argues that there needs to be change our rule and adopting “fundamental breach” as a new standard for cancelling the contract. We found the necessity of terminating contract from anticipatory breach of the contract by studying the papers and the decisions from courts. After analyzing the rules in Taiwanese Civil Code, we found that there is no rule could lead parties to terminate the contract for anticipatory breach of the contract, and therefore, building a new rule is the only solution. If we want to build the rule, for protecting creditor properly and preventing the waste of social welfare, the requirement of terminating contract for anticipatory breach of the contract must be “ it is clear that one of parties will commit a fundamental breach of contract prior to the date of performance”. Finally, we found that there is no general rules to terminate the continuing contracts in our Civil Code. There is two ways to solve this problem, one is applying the rule of cancelling contract by analogy. The other one is applying the rules for special types of contracts by analogy. In short, we found that it is more reasonable to chose the way applying the rule for special types of contract of terminating the contract. In other words, the party could terminate continuing contracts if the other party had seriously breached of the contract. To sum up, no matter in what kind of angle, they all leads to the same conclusion that the requisite for terminating contract should be “fundamental breach”. I hope the conclusion would be the guide to the revision of Civil Code in the future.

參考文獻


24. 陳添輝(2011),〈給付拒絕__兼論最高法院98年度台上字第921號民事判決》,《法令月刊》,62卷1期,頁35-54
8. 杜怡靜(2012),〈承攬人給付遲延時關於定作人解除權行使之限制__最高法院98年度台上字第1256號民事判決〉,《月旦裁判時報》,14期,頁85-89
26. 陳洸岳(2012),〈終止高爾夫球俱樂部會員權案__最高法院100年度台上字第1619號民事判決評析〉,《裁判時報》,13期,頁36-42
4. 陳瑋如(2012),《我國民法債務不履行類型化之檢討》,國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文
1. 林佳瑩(2010),《經銷契約法律關係之研究》,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學研究所碩士論文

被引用紀錄


黃詩雅(2017)。《聯合國國際商品買賣公約》契約解消重大違約之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201704117
江玟萱(2016)。論繼續性消費關係中消費者之任意終止權〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201610100
潘揚明(2015)。契約解消權與消費者解約權之比較-以歐洲契約法為中心〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2015.00019
劉志賢(2014)。契約法定解除之研究〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU.2014.02805

延伸閱讀