信用卡上之民事責任

Abstract

本文在簡介信用卡概念及信用卡交易主體的基礎上，詳述信用卡各種交易方式的交易流程及其演變，指出信用卡交易中的法律關係不是三邊形而是四邊形，即由發卡人和持卡人、持卡人和特約商戶、特約商戶和收單機構、收單機構和發卡人等四對法律關係組成。在四邊形的法律關係下，持卡人和發卡人之間的法律關係是最為重要的，信用卡契約應該界定為信用卡持卡人跟發卡人之間簽訂的信用卡申領契約。本文以信用卡契約為切入點，將信用卡交易的風險和責任歸為三類並按此類別重點展開論述： 一是發卡人引致風險的民事責任，主要分析錯誤執行支付命令以及自動取款機之故障導致的風險、責任；二是持卡人引致風險的民事責任，包括因信用卡債務所引發的利息問題，持卡人在惡意透支和觸犯中國大陸刑律時，信用卡契約的效力、信用卡保證人的責任，及出具不實收入證明單位的責任等；三是第三人引致風險的民事責任，主要論述無授權使用信用卡所引發的民事責任及其承擔。信用卡當事人的民事責任，在存在合法有效的契約關係的當事人之間為契約責任，不然也極少為侵權責任。在信用卡交易中，應該根據契約責任的歸責原則即嚴格責任原則和過失責任原則確定責任歸屬，對銀行實行過失推定責任原則。對系統或設備錯誤執行支付命令的情況，發卡人應對持卡人承擔違約責任，其賠償實行可預見性規則。通過討論有關ATM的法律關係和法律性質，指出在持卡人善意下，ATM交易記錄錯誤或少吐鈔，發卡人應對持卡人因此所受的損失負違約責任，發卡人可依據委託代理契約向ATM所有者追究違約責任，若ATM的故障是由於第三人的破壞或ATM的品質問題或軟體服務商所致，發卡人可向其追究違約或侵權責任； ATM多吐鈔，客戶取得超額款項符合民法規定的不當得利條件，應依法承擔返還不當得利的責任。持卡人惡意，則是故意的侵權行為，若構成犯罪，還應追究其刑事責任。隨著信用卡發行和使用的日益普及，由信用卡交易存在的利息過高等原因造成的信用卡債務問題也日益嚴重。本文就此對利息過高是否可以管制從利息管制的正當性、可能性和相當性進行闡述，指出利息管制是應該的也是可能和可行的。本文對刑法意義上的惡意透支進行分析，指出契約並非無效而是可撤銷契約，若發卡人行使撤銷權，則契約無效，持卡人應該承擔侵權責任；不然則契約有效，持卡人承擔契約責任。保證人的民事責任應該在信用卡最高透支限額內承擔，若存在發卡人欺詐保證人或知道債務人欺詐保證人的情況，保證人不承擔任何民事責任，不然則應承擔連帶保證責任。本文通過考察各國不實陳述民事責任的理論與立法，指出在對不實陳述所致的純粹經濟損失進行賠償時，不能仿照英美法那樣單以侵權法苛責，還需借助契約責任來解決問題。通過討論中國有關不實陳述案件之現行法律、司法解釋的規定，和對不實收入證明之行為的歸責原則、責任主體、構成要件、賠償範圍、責任形態等的分析，指出出具不實收入證明的單位應承擔補充賠償責任，若有和持卡人惡意串通的情況則應承擔連帶責任。本文從各個方面對信用卡無授權使用的法律性質進行考量，指出把無授權使用認定為無權代理比較合理。論述無授權使用的民事責任承擔需要解決的三個問題：一是無授權使用是否構成無授權使用人表見代理持卡人的使用？二是如果不構成表見代理，損失責任如何承擔？三是在構成表見代理下，損失責任又如何承擔？指出是否構成表見代理需從和信用卡片、簽名、密碼、身份證等有關的七個方面綜合認定。在不構成表見代理下，發卡人受到損失後，無授權使用人、持卡人、收單機構、特約商戶都有可能要向發卡人承擔責任，承擔的責任形態是不真正連帶責任中的補充責任。無授權使用人是最終的全部責任承擔者；而持卡人和收單機構都向發卡人承擔違約責任，為部分責任，責任形態為補充責任；特約商戶既向收單機構承擔責任也向持卡人承擔責任。在構成表見代理下，無授權使用人要向持卡人承擔侵害債權的民事責任，是最終的全部責任承擔者；發卡人向持卡人承擔部分的違約責任；收單機構向發卡人承擔部分的違約責任；特約商戶既向持卡人承擔責任也向收單機構承擔責任。實務中，持卡人作為原告向法院起訴時，持卡人可選擇的被告有四：發卡人、無授權使用人、特約商戶、收單機構。但根據無授權使用人是否構成對持卡人的表見代理，持卡人請求權基礎不同，各方對持卡人承擔的責任形態和大小也不同。

Based on the brief introduction of the concept and the subject of credit cards, detailing the credit card transaction process and evolution of the various transactions, It points out that the legal relationship between the credit card transactions is not a triangle but a quadrilateral, namely composed of issuer and the cardholder, merchant, cardholder and merchant and the acquirer, the single institution and the card issuer, four pairs of legal relationship. Based on the credit card contracts, and three types of responsibility as the risk of credit card transactions and according to the categories discussed mainly: the first is the card cause the civil liability of the risk, mainly analyzes the error follow payment orders and the risk of failure of the ATM; the second is the civil liability of the risk caused by the card holder, including for credit-card debt has triggered interest problem, the cardholder when malicious overdraft and violate the criminal law of mainland China, the validity of the credit card contract, credit card, the liability of the guarantor and issuing false income to prove the responsibility of the unit, etc.; the third is the civil liability of the risk led by the third party, this paper discusses mainly the not authorized the use of credit card of civil liability and the expense. Credit card the civil liability of the parties, in the presence of a legally valid contractual relationship between the parties for contract liability, or rarely for tort liability. In credit card transactions, it should be based on the principle of imputation of contractual liability is the principle of strict liability and fault liability principle to determine the attribution of responsibility, and the bank should implement the principle of presumption of fault. Execution of payment orders for system or equipment error, issuer to the cardholder to undertake responsibility of breach of contract, compensation for the foreseeable rule. Through the discussion of legal relations and legal nature of the ATM, it points out that in the cardholder goodwill, ATM transaction log error or less out cash, card issuer to the cardholder for losses suffered as a result of negative liability for breach of contract, the sender can be based on the principal-agent contract liability for breach of contract to the owner of ATM, if the ATM fault is due to quality problems third failure or ATM or software service providers, the sender can breach or tort liability to its; ATM out cash, customers get excess funds improper conditions with civil law's profit, should bear the liability according to the law of restitution of unjust enrichment. Cardholder malicious, is intentional tort, if the case constitutes a crime, should also be investigated for criminal responsibility. With the rising popularity of credit card issuance and ussing, due to the high interest of credit card transactions, the credit card debt problem is increasingly serious. In this paper, on the interest rate is too high can control from the legitimacy of interest regulation, elaborates the possibility and fairly, points out that the interest rate control is legitimate, possible and feasible. This article analyze the criminal law in the sense of malicious overdraft, pointing out that the contract is not invalid but may revoke the contract, if the issuer exercise the right of revocation, the contract is invalid, the cardholder shall bear tort liability; otherwise it is effective, the cardholder should bear contractual liability. The guarantor's civil liability should be held in the highest overdraft credit card limit, if there exists a card fraud guarantee or know the fraud guarantor, surety bear no civil liability, otherwise it should assume joint responsibility to ensure that. In this paper, by investigating the false statement civil liability theory and legislation, pointing out that in the pure economic loss caused by a misrepresentation during compensation, not as single modelled on the British and American law to tort law strictures, it also needs a contract responsibility To solve the problem. By discussing the related case of misrepresentation of current law and judicial interpretation of the rules, and not the behavior of real income proof, constitutive requirements, the main responsibility imputation principles, the scope of compensation, liability form, pointing out that issued false proof of income units shall bear the responsibility of compensation, the cardholder malicious collusion case shall bear joint and several liability. In this paper, from the aspects of credit using without authorization the use of the legal nature of considerations, pointed out that to identify without authorization as unauthorized agency is quite reasonable. No discussion is authorized to use civil liability. There are three problems to be solved: one is without authorized the use of whether constitute authorized user of the cardholder's use of ostensible agency? Second, if you do not constitute ostensible agency, how to bear the loss responsibility? The third it is under the constitute ostensible agency, and how to bear the loss responsibility? Pointing out constitute ostensible agency needs from and credit card, signature, password, id card and so on seven aspects comprehensive recognition. In has not formed the agency by estoppel, hairpin people get after the loss, unauthorized use, the cardholder, merchant acquirers, issuers are likely to want to assume responsibility, the responsibility of form is not the real joint and several liability of supplementary liability. No authorization to use is the full responsibility for the ultimate responsibility; and the cardholder and the acquirer to the issuer to undertake responsibility of breach of contract, as part of the responsibility, liability form for supplementary liability; not only to the merchant acquirer liable to the cardholder liability. The agency by estoppel, authorized the use of free people to bear the civil liability of infringement of creditor's rights to the cardholder, is the full responsibility for the ultimate responsibility; the sender to assume the cardholder part of the liability for breach of contract; the acquirer bear part of the responsibility of breach of contract to the issuer; merchants both to the cardholder to accept responsibility single institution responsibility. In practice, the cardholder as the plaintiff Sue to the court, the cardholder can choose the defendant from four parts: the sender, without the person using without authorization of the use of people, merchants, acquirers. But according to whether the non authorized the use of the formation of the cardholder's apparent agency, the cardholder foundation of right of claim is different, the shape and size of the parties to the responsibility of the cardholder is different.