承攬契約之瑕疵損害與瑕疵結果損害

Abstract

德國法在2002年債法修正前，有關承攬契約瑕疵所生損害賠償請求權，因消滅時效制度上之缺失，實務遂發展出「瑕疵損害」與「瑕疵結果損害」之分，就後者更區分為「『較近的』瑕疵結果損害」與「『較遠的』瑕疵結果損害」，適用不同之消滅時效規定以資因應。此三者之區分，造成實務上極大的困擾，經過近百年的努力後，仍沒有明確的區別標準。終於經由2002年之修法嘗試將此一區分予以除去。 在台灣，過去實務上從未有過此區分之實益與必要；但在最高法院96年第8次民事庭會議決議作成後，何謂「瑕疵給付之損害」與「加害給付之損害」，即成為我國理論與實務之新興問題。此後之最高法院裁判，除「逕行適用本決議之結論」及「要求原審查明係瑕疵給付之損害或加害給付之損害」外，迄今尚未「親自」針對此二者之定義作明確之解釋。 本文整理並分析德國實務上歷來的判決，試圖透過「案例群」的方式提供我國實務區分標準之參考，盼能縮短對於此問題摸索之時間。本文更進一步地省思，現行法恐已不符合實際需求而有修正之必要，乃針對消滅時效部分提出修法建議。

Because of the differences of the lengths of extintive prescriptions, the german law had the distinguished classify so called ” defective damages” and “consequential damages”. The efforts made to develop standards to differentiate the two in the end have failed in practice. German Legilaters hoped through Contract law reform in 2002 to solve the above problems. Before the 8th resolution of Supreme Court, no such distinction was made in Taiwanese practice. However, the concurrent relationship between liability for non-conforming performance and warranty for defective works, or what is “damage caused to the defective work itself” and “damage arising from defective work and caused to the property other than the defective work or the integrity interest of the owner of the work” have been drawing more attention ever since. This Master Thesis tries to classify the different damages based on German Case Groups, and provides further support for future amendment for Construction Contract on the issue of extinctive prescription.