代償請求權之研究

Abstract

我國代償請求權之規定最早可追溯於德國Pandekten法學時期，學者Mommsen將代償請求權與給付不能概念連結，以「利益應歸屬於承擔危險之人」作為理論依據，影響德國舊民法第一草案。惟德國自舊民法修正第一草案後，即擺脫與危險負擔制度之連結。我國現行法承襲民國民律草案，採取較近似於德國舊民法第一草案之立法例，而非德國舊民法之立法例。 其次，日本改正前民法雖無代償請求權明文規定，仍受德國法影響被通說承認。但因相關制度立法例之不同，致多以危險負擔之補充規定理解代償請求權。然而，於債權法改正後，危險負擔揚棄債權人主義，並於改正後民法第422條之2新增代償請求權之規定，賦與代償請求權獨立之意義。 關於規範目的，代償請求權承載調整當事人間不當利益流動之意旨。所謂不當係指侵害歸屬於他人相對性債權之利益造成之財產變動，與調整絕對權利益侵害之不當得利制度，於民法上違反權益歸屬之調整，各自扮演重要角色。 關於構成要件，不論意定之債或法定之債，亦不論債之內容，均不排除代償請求權適用之可能。於給付不能可歸責於債務人時，民法第225條第2項雖以不可歸責於債務人為要件，但應認為此時存有法律漏洞，債權人得類推適用主張之。給付不能事由與債務人取得代償利益間，應認為僅須有間接因果關係即足以滿足要件。替代性之判斷上，原給付標的須與代償利益間具有目的上之同一性。 關於法律效果，代償請求權僅具有請求權效力，行使範圍原則上應以原給付標的客觀價額為限，例外於被立法者評價為具高度不法性時，方允許債權人得就代償利益之全額為請求，以剝奪債務人獲利之方式嚇阻之。此外，於代償利益價值小於原給付時，債權人應得依比例縮減其對待給付義務。

The earliest provision of Claim of the Return of Reimbursement in Taiwan can be traced back to the German Pandekten law period. Scholar Mommsen connected the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement with the concept of impossibility, and based on the source of Roman law that 'commodum eius esse debet, cuius periculum est', which influenced the first draft of the old German civil code. However, since the amendment of the first draft of the old civil code, German civil law got rid of its connection with the risk of loss system. The current civil code of Taiwan inherits the draft of civil code of Republic of China, adopting an instance of legislation that is more similar to the first draft of the old German civil code, instead of the old German civil code. Secondly, despite the absence of a provision for the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement in Japanese civil code before law of obligations reform, it was still generally recognized under the influence of German law. Nevertheless, due to differences of the relevant legislation, the provision of Claim of the Return of Reimbursement is often deemed as the supplementary provisions of risk of loss system. However, after the reformation, the risk of loss system abandoned the doctrine of risk of loss on impossibility is taken by creditors, and the amended Article 422-2 of the Japanese civil code added a provision for the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement, giving it autonomous meaning. Regarding the purpose of regulation, the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement carries the intention of adjusting the unjust allocation of assets between parties resulted from contracts. The unjust allocation here refers to the property changes caused by the infringement of the interests attributable to right in personam from others, and the unjust enrichment system of adjusting the infringement of the interests attributable to right in rem, each plays an important role in the adjustment of the rights and interests attributionin violation of the civil law. Regarding the elements, either contractual obligations or non-contractual obligations, the possibility of the application of the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement is not excluded, moreover, the content of the obligations is also irrelevant. When the debtor is imputed to the impossibility, though Paragraph 2, Article 225 of the civil code requires that the debtor is not imputed, it should be considered as a legal loophole, thus the creditor may claim that Paragraph 2, Article 225 of the civil code should apply mutatis mutandis. Between the impossibility by reason of a circumstance and the substitute interest debtor obtain, it should be considered that indirect causation is still sufficient to meet the element. In the judgment of the element of substitution, subject matter of obligation must have the same purpose as the substitute interest. Regarding the effects, the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement only has the effect of the claim, and the scope of exercise should in principle be limited to the objective value of the subject matter of obligation. However, the legislator may make exceptions for certain higly illegal cases, allowing the creditor to claim full amount of the substitute interest. By depriving the profit, highly illegal behaviors of the debtor may be deterred. If the value of the substitute interest is less than the subject matter of obligation, the creditor may reduce its obligation to counter-prestation.