日本詐害行為撤銷權之研究

Abstract

我國民法第244條以下之詐害行為撤銷權制度，繼受自日本民法第424條以下。日本債權法於2017年修正，將實務見解明文化，大幅變動撤銷權之要件與效果。相對於此，我國民法撤銷權並未見修正。本論文以日本詐害行為撤銷權制度之要件與效果為討論核心，期能作為我國法日後修正之參考。 日本撤銷權之修正，參考該國破產法否認權規定，以要件細緻化作為修正目的之一。行使撤銷權時，債權人之債權須為金錢債權，而債務人行為客觀上須害及債權人、且主觀上須具備詐害意思。基於保留債務人財務重建可能之考量，新法將對價相當之財產處分行為、債務消滅與設定擔保之行為之主觀要件嚴格化至通謀害意、並對債務消滅與設定擔保之行為設有支付不能之要件。 此次修正對於向來實務所秉持之相對撤銷理論加以些微變更。由於日本並無物權行為獨立性之概念，撤銷之客體及於全部行為而波及甚廣，故日本實務限縮撤銷權之主體效力，而將債務人排除於撤銷權效力以外。然而，如此將使得受益人、轉得人無從對債務人行使權利，對於渠等之權利保障過於不足。因此，修正後日本民法增訂訴訟告知制度，以使撤銷權效力擴及於債務人，並增設受益人、轉得人於撤銷後所生之權利，以臻完善。 平等主義與優先主義之不同制度定位，亦影響撤銷權效果之設計。新法容許撤銷債權人請求受益人或轉得人交付動產於自己，而居於財產管理人之地位蓋債務人較易再度將動產脫出；但撤銷債權人受領金錢後，是否具有優先清償效力，新法並未對此加以規範，而留諸實務見解形成。 對於我國法而言，日本法之修正有值得參考之處，但因二國之民法基本理論並不完全相同，不應完全仿造日本法，而應就各別要件與效果，分別討論是否應引進日本法上之制度。

The Obligee's Right to Demand Rescission of Fraudulent Act under Article 244 and 245 of Taiwanese Civil Code are the reception from Article 424 and subsequent articles of Japanese Civil Code. The law of obligations in Japan was revised in 2017, which made part of judicial practices explicitly on the code and alternated the requirements and the legal effect of the revocation proceedings for fraudulent acts to a great extent. In contrast, the relative regulations in Taiwan have no amendment after 1999. The thesis focuses on the constituent elements and the legal effect of the obligee's right to demand rescission of fraudulent act in Japan, looking forward to serving as the reference of the pending revision of Taiwanese Civil Code. The obligee's right to demand rescission of fraudulent act in Japan took the revocation right of Bankruptcy Law of the country as a reference, and it aimed to elaborately itemize different types of acts by the obligor. If the obligee would like to demand the court to rescind the act of the obligor, the payment of the obligation should be money; and the obligor knows that what they commit will prejudice the obligee. Based on the consideration of keeping the chance of financial reconstruction of the obligor, the amended act tightened the subjective requirements in the following 2 cases: (1) if the obligor commits an act of disposing of a property held thereby, and acquires a reasonable value from the beneficiary in exchange; and (2) if an act concerns the provision of a security or extinguishment of an obligation that is committed by the obligor with regard to an existing obligation. In the second case, the obligor could demand rescission only if the obligor is unable to pay debts. The revision in 2017 slightly modified the relative rescission theory held by judicial practices in Japan. Due to the lack of the concept of the independence of the act of real right, the object rescinded includes the obligation and the alternation of the real right(if exists), which has a widespread impact. In view of that, Japanese judicial practices narrowed the subjective effect of the rescission right, excluding the obligor from the scope of application. Nevertheless, the exclusion keeps the beneficiary and the subsequent acquirer from claiming their rights to the obligor, providing inadequate considerations for them. In response to this loophole, the amended Japanese civil code enacted the notice of suit to make the final and binding judgment upholding demand for rescission of fraudulent act effective against the obligor and all obligees. Furthermore, the revision added the provisions of beneficiary's right for counter-performance received by obligor, the restoration of beneficiary's claim, and the right of subsequent acquirer subject to demand for rescission of fraudulent act. As for the civil code of Taiwan, the revision of Japanese Civil Code is worthy of reference. However, since the basic theories of civil law of Taiwan and Japan are not exactly identical, the provisions in Taiwanese Civil Code should not completely replicate its Japanese counterparts, and it should be discussed separately whether the regulations in Japanese law should be introduced for each requirement and legal effect.