2017年民事法年度回顧：民事財產法裁判回顧

Annual Review of 2017 on the Civil Law: The Supreme Court Judgments on Property Law

本文蒐集2017年最高法院民事判決，蒐集方法為彙整各法學雜誌搜錄或評論的重要裁判，從中挑選在法學理論上具有重要性的案例，撰寫成篇。在民法總則方面，於利息先扣之消費借貸契約，應扣除利息後始得計算利息；人格權之妨礙排除請求權，並無消滅時效之適用；於當事人協商造成時效消滅時，創設時效不完成制度。在契約法方面，預約義務人違反預約時，應負損害賠償責任。債務人違反附隨義務時，債權人得請求損害賠償，並得解除契約。在承攬瑕疵擔保責任案件，如逾越一年瑕疵發現期間，定作人不得再依不完全給付之規定行使權利。代償請求權之代償物包含交易對價，且其消滅時效採取「代償請求權不發生說」。至於情事變更原則所生之增加給付請求權之除斥期間，最高法院見解分歧，並非一致。在侵權責任方面，民法第184條第1項前段之權利內涵及後段之善良風俗，採取寬鬆解釋，適度擴大侵權責任之成立。商品自傷，不在消費者保護法第7條規定之保護範圍。在醫療責任方面，醫療常規非醫療人員注意義務之唯一標準，且醫療水準之注意義務即為善良管理人之注意義務。於發生重大醫療瑕疵時，醫療因果關係發生舉證責任轉換之效果。告知後同意法則中的「代理同意」，親屬之意見僅具有參考價值，仍應以理性病人之最大利益作為醫療處置之基礎。 This paper reviews important civil law judgments made by the Supreme Court in 2017. In the General Principles of the Civil Code, the sum of a contract of loan has to be reduced by the interest that has been collected by the creditor. The right to injunction based on the right of personality is not subject to the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is postponed due to the parties’ negotiation. In the contract law, a debtor of a preliminary contract is liable for damages when violating his duty to performance. Where a debtor fails to perform his ancillary obligations, the creditor may terminate the contract and claim damages. Where an undertaker’s work is defective, the proprietor is not allowed to make a claim based on incomplete performance if he passed the one year period of time to find the defects. The claim to increase the reimbursement for the work under the doctrine of change of circumstances is subject to different limitation of period of time under the Supreme Court decisions. In tort law, the definitions of “right” and “good morals” stipulated in article 184 are expanded widely. The liability for the defects on goods is not covered by article 7 of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, in medical malpractice, medical custom is not a decisive criterion in determining the doctor’s negligence, while medical standard is the same as a good manager’s standard of care. Where a doctor is grossly negligent, the burden of proof for causation is on the doctor, instead of the patient. Although relatives of a patient are allowed to express their opinions, their opinions are merely for reference but not decisive.