邱聰智

中文摘要

在法律行為締結過程中，其當事人有過失以致相對人受有損害者，視為所謂締結法律行為過失（簡稱締結過失）；其因而應負之賠償責任，視為通稱的法律行為前責任。對於此一法學課題的建構，我國民法（學）大體依循德、日民法（學）的發展軌跡，採突出締約過失（責任）的思維模式；並在此基礎上，藉民法債編的修正（第二四五條之一的增訂及第二四七條之修訂），完成具體的立法確立，以締約過失責任為主流的法律行為前責任體制，為之確定，復為主流學理所肯定。法律行為前責任，顯然不以真的前責任為限，突出締約過失責任，應面對其他法律行為轉型的締結過失責任問題，其解決之道，無可避免的，必須廣泛援用類推適用，形成「法律行為前責任＝締約過失責任類型條項＋類推適用」的制度實質。一套法律理論，必須廣泛藉助類推適用，才能勉強填補此起彼落的法律漏洞，是否盡符體系嚴謹完整的檢驗？如法律解決適用上尚有可行的代替方案，是否可以嘗試探索及評比？應均是值得探索的重要課題。法律行為前的法制構成上，我國民法於第一一三條設有德、日民法所無的特殊條文；如果不輕率否定民法該條的規範功能，則其體現的實質制度內容，殆與學理所欲建構的完整法律行為前責任，頗為吻合。已其與民法主流思維模式表徵的第二四五條之一等相較，似更能趨近個案之客觀具體情況，以彈性機制強化權益保護及具體正義的妥善實現。因為，民法第一一三條的規定，未將賠償範圍漸縮於信賴利益賠償，從學理上可以發展出「從信賴利益賠償到履行利益賠償」的制度模式；導出這樣的論點，不僅接近比較法的通制，而且也與德日民法學晚近的有利學院若合符節。再者，民法本條所規定的回復原狀，也可為給付不當得利作更妥適的詮釋；因為，給付不當得利的利益返還範圍，應以回復（權益變動前的）原狀為適用準則，而非設限於現存利益。而且，民法本條關於回復原狀的規定，係沿襲大理院早期的判例而來，其立法定制，尚非空穴來風，也非突如其來。

Back to Article 113 in Taiwanese Civil Code – Creating Liability for Fault in Legal Act-Making

Chiu, Tsong–Juh

abstract

In a process of constituting a legal act , when one party who negligently causes impairers to the other party, this can been seen as a fault in legal act -making; Its thus should take the undertakes an obligation of compensation, and which is called the liability of pre-legal act. Regarding a jurisprudence topic construction, our hierarchy of civil law is substantially relies on the legal development path of German and Japanese law, which adopts the approach of liability for fault in contract-making. And in this foundation, the revision of the Obligation part of the ROC Civil Code (a Art.245-1 revising and Art.247 revision), completes the concrete legislation establishment, takes the liability for fault in contract-making as the main system of the liability of pre-legal act, determined for it, turns round affirmed for the mainstream scientific theory. The liability of pre-legal act, concludes a liability for fault in contract-making, should face other pre-legal act reforming to the questions of the liability for fault in contract-making, its solution, inevitable, must widely cite the analogy to be suitable, the formation “liability of pre-legal act = liability for fault in contract-making type article + analogy is suitable” the system essence. A set of legal theory, must widely be suitable with the aid of the analogy, can fill the continually loophole reluctantly, whether completely symbol system rigorous integrity examination? If the legal solution has feasible replacements when it is to apply, whether could attempt the exploration and the appraisal? Should be the important topic is worth exploring. The legal system constitution in liability of pre-legal act, the ROC Civil Code Art. 113 is a special article which is equipped with German and Japanese civil law not to have; If is not rash denies Civil Code Art. 113 the standard function, then it manifests the substantive content, the scientific theory want to construct the liability of pre-legal act, quite tallies. It and so on has compared with civil law mainstream ideological mode attribute's one of 245th, resembles can draw close the case the objective special details, by elastic mechanism strengthening rights and interests protection and specifically just realization properly. As the Civil Code Art.113, if it doesn’t limit the range of the compensation to the protection of the reliance interest, it can expand the system mode that from the compensation of reliable interest to performance-interest theoretically. Deriving this contention not only close to most of the foreign countries but accords with the later cogent civil-law theories of Germany and Japan. Furthermore, the rehabilitation of the Civil Code Art.113 can be the reason of the compensation of Unjust Enrichment; Because, does not pay when profits the benefit returns the scope, should take reply (before rights and interests change) the original condition as to be suitable the criterion, but must supposes is restricted in the extant benefit. Moreover, the Civil Code Art.113 about the reply original condition stipulation, is following by the Dali Court(the same as Judicial Yuan) early time in the legal precedent , its legislation has custom-made, and not comes from no legal jurisprudence or comes suddenly. Because of the statement, the article focuses on Civil Code Art.113. On one hand, I observe and sum up legal-history and development of comparative law. On the other hand, according the Legislative Yuan and the interpretation, I will concern the important questions about a fault in legal act -making. The following are its relevant key points which about construct a system for a fault in legal act -making, and which hope to construct a complete system of the liability of pre-legal act for　the　ROC　Civil　Code　and　broach　some　suggestions.