民法第七十二條「公序良俗」具體化之研究

Abstract

「公序良俗」此一法律概念不僅在私法領域被廣泛使用，即便將其置於整個法律體系之下，亦扮演著十分重要的角色，而實務上之判決，涉及公序良俗者更是不勝枚舉。然而，所謂的「公序良俗」係屬於概括條款，具有高度之抽象性以及不確定性，法官於個案之適用上具有極大之裁量權利，甚至可說適用上幾乎全取決於法官的判斷，為免人民對於判決的結果難以預見，並使法官不至於恣意擅斷，對於「公序良俗」的概念加以描述，使之得以具體化，便為法學上重要之任務，亦為本文所欲探討者。然而，若欲對於所有涉及公序良俗之條文皆有所研究，實乃一浩大之工程，尚非筆者之能力所及，因此本文集中於探討實務上最重要之民法第72條所稱之「公共秩序或善良風俗」之具體化。 而具體化之方法，於某種程度來說，其實即為類型化，亦即歸納實務裁判之個別案例，從事比較研究，組成案例類型，以便於參照。本文在整理分析實務上關於民法第72條之裁判時，對於公共秩序與善良風俗，採取不區分之見解，蓋其兩者在意義上有極大部分之重疊，亦具有互相補充之功能，實務上於適用時亦大多不加以區分，若欲強行將其區分實有困難，且恐淪於學說術語之爭辯。 本文參考國內外學說及實務上的分類，並且整理我國實務上之裁判，試圖歸納整理出我國公序良俗之類型，對於其中較具有爭議或探討價值者提出分析及討論。此外，本文發現實務上對於個案中是否違反公序良俗常使用利益衡量作為判斷之方法，惟於多數案例中，法院並未詳細說明其判斷之依據以及理由，就此，本文也提出了批評以及本文之見解作為結論。

“Public order and good morals”This is not only a legal concept that widely used in the field of civil law, but also plays an important role in the entire legal system. Besides, judgments of our courts which is involving the public order and good morals are also numerous. However, the so-called“public order and morals”is a kind of general clause,which has the characteristic of highly abstract and uncertain. Judges have a great discretion to apply it to certain case, even almost depends on the judge's own judgment. To make the results of judgments predictable for people and to prevent judges from arbitrary,it is important to describe the concept of“public order and good morals”, so as to substantiate it,which is also the main issue of this article. Nevertheless ,studying on all the provisions related to public order and good morals is a vast project, not yet a writer can afford it.Therefore,this article would focus on researching the substantiation of the public order and good morals of article 72 under Civil Code. Concerning the method of substantiation,to some extent,is classifying.Which means to summarize individual cases and compare each of it, in order to compose different types for reference. This article would not distinguish public order and good morals while analyzing the judgments relate to article 72 of Civil Code. Because public order and good morals cover both in the sense of a great part of the overlap, and it is a supplement to each other.Moreover, the courts also almost not differentiate it.You would find it's hard to distinguish it,and meaningless. After referring to theory and practice on domestic and international, and analyzing the judgements of our courts,i tried to establish my own categories of case groups and discuss some controversial or significant cases. In addition,i found that our courts frequently use Benefit Measurement Method to decide if juridical acts in individual cases fit in with public order and good morals.However,in most cases, the court did not elaborate the basis and reason to their judgments.As for it,i put forward my criticism and opinions as this article's conclusion.