論婚姻外親密關係之侵權責任

Abstract

釋字第791號宣告通姦罪違憲後，民事訴訟成為婚姻外親密關係主要之救濟途徑。本文指出，我國婚姻法制已從「制度性保障」轉向「個人自主保障」，以貞操觀為核心之「配偶權」，於民事場域中發揮著近似已廢除之通姦罪之功能，與當代婚姻法制所重視之個人自主產生扞格。 據此，本文提出「經營婚姻之期待」，主張配偶間就性與親密行為之安排，應回歸配偶雙方明示或默示之合意，而非由法律強制統一規定。「經營婚姻之期待」之內容會因人而異，其欠缺「權利」所要求之明確性，故其屬民法第184條第1項後段之「利益」，亦屬同法第195條第3項「基於配偶關係之身分法益」。相較配偶權此種強制規定，「經營婚姻之期待」屬於任意規定，其容許配偶間得以合意約定或變更其內容。受害配偶於一定條件下，得依上開規定請求他方配偶及第三人負損害賠償責任，侵權責任成立與否，應依個案判斷之。

Following the declaration of unconstitutionality of the offense of adultery under J.Y. Interpretation No. 791, civil litigation has become the primary means of redress for extramarital intimate relationships. This thesis contends that Taiwan's matrimonial legal framework has shifted from the doctrine of "institutional guarantee" toward the protection of individual autonomy, and that the "spousal right"—premised upon the notion of sexual fidelity—functions, within the civil litigation context, in a manner closely resembling the now-abolished criminal offense of adultery, thereby standing in direct tension with the individual autonomy that contemporary matrimonial law seeks to uphold. Accordingly, this thesis proposes the concept of "marital expectation," arguing that the arrangement of sexual and intimate relations between spouses ought to be governed by their express or implied mutual agreement, rather than by mandatory, uniform legal prescription. As the content of the marital expectation varies from couple to couple and thus lacks the definiteness required of a "right," it constitutes an "interest" within the meaning of the latter part of Article 184, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, and simultaneously qualifies as a "status-based legal interest arising from the spousal relationship" under Article 195, Paragraph 3 of the Civil Code. Unlike the spousal right, which operates as a mandatory rule, the marital expectation is a default rule, permitting spouses to define or vary its content by agreement. Under certain conditions, an aggrieved spouse may, pursuant to the foregoing provisions, seek damages from the other spouse or an intervening third party; whether tort liability is established must be determined on a case-by-case basis.