消費者債務清理之逕行認可更生制度

Abstract

消費者債務清理程序為面臨經濟困境之個人債務人清理債務之救濟管道，其中之更生制度，更令債務人得於保留自身財產之同時，依其所訂更生方案清償債務。為促進債務人依更生程序清理債務、受法院裁定認可更生方案，消費者債務清理條例特規定「逕行認可更生制度」，使更生方案得不經債權人會議可決，於符合一定要件下，逕由法院予以認可。 惟於逕行認可更生制度之解釋、運作，實務上存在操作之疑義，有待進一步釐清。除應就要件之操作、適用予以細節化外，細究爭議之由來，係因關於逕行認可更生之正當性理論基礎未予充分建立之故。為使我國逕行認可更生制度得為妥善解釋、完善運作，以解救誠實但不幸之債務人脫離債務泥沼，賦予復甦經濟生活之機會，本文以美國聯邦破產法第 13 章個人債務調整程序作為比較、分析之參照對象。 首先，自制度之基礎理念以言 ，不論是個人債務調整程序或更生程序 ，除程序進行應簡速、經濟外，均係以誠實但不幸債務人之經濟復甦、債權人之權益保障作為原理原則。其次，為充分研討法院逕行認可清償計畫、更生方案之制度，於探討認可要件前，先對美國聯邦破產法第 13 章與消費者債務清理條例之更生程序為一般性、整體性之認知。最後進入研究重點，即細節性研析清償計畫、更生方案內容及其各認可要件，探討債權人之權利得為何等變更、調整，及各認可要件之具體、細節性操作，同時分析、歸納要件設計背後之法理基礎與規範意旨，藉以輔助、強化我國逕行認可更生制度之規範解釋論、正當性基礎。 就清償計畫之認可要件而言 ，主要區分為善意、最佳利益標準、預計可支配收入標準、擔保債權充分保障及其他認可要件；就更生方案之認可要件而言，則主要區分為有固定收入之盡力清償或無固定收入之條件公允、清算價值保障原則、可處分所得基準、自用住宅借款特別條款及其他認可要件。於分析、比較各要件後，可發現其規範意旨均圍繞、緊扣 「債務人之清償誠意」、「債權人之權益保障」及 「擔保債權之充分保障」 ，在此意義上，應得認上述基本要求即為法院裁定逕行認可更生制度之正當性理論基礎，各該要件已充分反映制度之理論基礎而成為認可正當性要件。 上述各該要件既已充分反映逕行認可更生之正當性基礎，則一旦具備該等要件，法院即「應」裁定認可更生方案。為此，法院於解釋、操作逕行認可更生要件時，不得任意創設法無明文之要件或忽略細節性之適用。換言之，於認可正當性要件均具備之情況，法院有義務作成認可更生方案之裁定 ，此即表明債務人有請求法院裁定認可更生方案之權利 ， 保障債務人得循更生程序清理債務 ，履行經認可之更生方案而獲免責救濟，重建其經濟生活。

The consumer debt clearance procedure provides individuals facing financial difficulties with a channel for debt relief. Among the system’s options, the rehabilitation system allows debtors to repay their debts according to a rehabilitation scheme while retaining their assets. To facilitate debtors in clearing their debts through the rehabilitation procedure and obtaining a confirmed rehabilitation scheme, the Consumer Debt Clearance Act specifically provides for a “direct confirmation rehabilitation system.” Under this system, the rehabilitation scheme can be confirmed directly by the court, without the approval of the creditors’ meeting, as long as certain conditions are met. However, in practice, there are ambiguities regarding the interpretation and operation of the direct confirmation rehabilitation system, which need to be clarified further. In addition to providing more detailed guidelines for the application of the conditions, the underlying dispute stems from the fact that the legitimacy of direct confirmation rehabilitation has not been fully established on a theoretical basis. To properly interpret and improve the functioning of Taiwan’s direct confirmation rehabilitation system, thereby helping honest but unfortunate debtors escape the debt trap and providing the opportunity for economic recovery, this article compares and analyzes it against Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, as a comparative reference, which deals with individual debts adjustment. Firstly, from a conceptual perspective, whether it is an individual debts adjustment process or a rehabilitation procedure, both systems aim to help honest yet unfortunate debtors recover economically, while ensuring the protection of creditors’ rights. In addition, the procedure should be efficient and economical. Secondly, before exploring the conditions for the confirmation of a repayment plan or rehabilitation scheme, a general understanding of both Chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and Taiwan’s rehabilitation procedure under the Consumer Debt Clearance Act is necessary. Finally, the focus of this research is on the detailed analysis of the contents of repayment plans and rehabilitation schemes, their respective confirmation conditions, and the changes or modifications to creditors’ rights. This will also include the specific, detailed operation of the confirmation conditions, as well as an analysis and synthesis of the legal theory and normative purposes behind the design of the conditions, in order to clarify and strengthen the normative interpretation of Taiwan's direct confirmation system and its legitimacy. The confirmation conditions for a repayment plan are primarily divided into the following categories: good faith, the best interests test, the projected disposable income test, adequate protection for the holders of secured claims, and other confirmation conditions. For the confirmation conditions of a rehabilitation scheme, the key categories include: best efforts to repay for those with a regular income or fairness of the terms for those without a regular income, the liquidation value protection principle, the disposable income standard, special provisions for mortgage loans on primary residences, and other confirmation conditions. After analyzing and comparing these conditions, it is clear that their normative intent revolves around "the debtor’s sincere intent to repay," "protection of creditors’ rights," and "adequate protection for secured creditors." In this sense, these basic requirements should be regarded as the legitimate theoretical foundation for the court’s direct confirmation of the rehabilitation system. These conditions reflect the system's theoretical foundation and serve as the legitimacy requirements for confirmation. Given that the above criteria sufficiently reflect the legitimacy of the direct confirmation rehabilitation system, once these conditions are met, the court "must" confirm the rehabilitation scheme. Therefore, when interpreting and applying the conditions for direct confirmation of rehabilitation, the court should not arbitrarily create conditions not explicitly mentioned by law, nor neglect the detailed operation of these conditions. In other words, when the legitimacy requirements for confirmation are satisfied, the court has an obligation to issue an order of confirmation. This implies that the debtor has the right to request the court to confirm the rehabilitation scheme, thereby safeguarding the debtor's right to clear debts through the rehabilitation procedure, comply with the confirmed scheme, and obtain a discharge, ultimately rebuilding their economic life.