月旦知識庫
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫學   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   非核心 DOI文章
查看詳細全文
篇名
剖析代償請求權之本質與消滅時效之起算──以最高法院100年度台上字第1833號判決為楔子
並列篇名
Analyses the Nature and the Beginning of the Period of Extinctive Prescription of 'the Return of Claim for Reimbursement' - Guided by the Case Adjudged by the Taiwan Supreme Court, Taishentzu 1833, 2011
作者 向明恩
中文摘要
以臺灣最高法院100年度台上字第1833號判決為楔子,引出代償請求權本質探索之必要性,特別是藉助臺灣民法第225條之立法理由與借鏡德國民法第285條之規範意旨,以清晰勾勒出代償請求權之規範基調──調整因債之相對性所生之不當財貨分配,同時透過代償請求權與臺灣民法第179條所包攝之權益侵害型不當得利間之比對,映照出二者在法益歸屬之保護上雖是各異,一為維護債之相對性地位,另一為保護絕對性之地位,但二者卻共通的本於不當得利法則而建構。在代償請求權為調整因債之相對性所生之不當財貨分配之思維導向下,力主代償請求權不應解為原債權之繼續,毋寧係屬新生之權利,按此消滅時效自應自給付不能時重新起算,以為舊債權說與新債權說間之論爭,尋求一妥適且符合規範目的性之解決路徑。
英文摘要
Beginning with the case adjudged by the Taiwan Supreme Court, case No. Taishentzu 1833, 2011, we would find that it is necessary to explore the nature of the claim of the return of reimbursement. Especially, we could sketch the contours of the claim of the return of reimbursement by virtue of the gist of Taiwan Civil Code article 225 and German Civil Code article 285. The basic normative idea of the claim of the return of reimbursement is that it adjusts the unjust allocation of assets between parties resulted from contracts. Meanwhile, contrasting the claim of the return of reimbursement with the infringed-typed unjust enrichment regulated in Taiwan Civil Code article 179 reflect that although they are different in protected object, one for the contractual status (right in personam) and another for the exclusive status (right in rem), they both established with the legal principle of unjust enrichment. Guided by the idea of adjusting the unjust allocation of assets between parties resulted from contracts, the claim of the return of reimbursement should not be understood to continue the original debt, but a brand new right. According to this, the extinctive prescription of the claim of the return of reimbursement should start from the moment when performance becomes impossible. In addition, the idea could end the argument of the nature of the claim of the return of reimbursement in an appropriate way which conforms with the purpose of the regulation. 
起訖頁 138-154
關鍵詞 代償請求權給付不能不當得利法權益歸屬之法秩序代償請求權之消滅時效the Claim of the Return of ReimbursementImpossible PerformanceUnjust Enrichmentthe Order of Belonging of Rights and InterestsExtinctive Prescription of the Claim of the Return of Reimbursement
刊名 月旦民商法雜誌  
期數 201506 (48期)
出版單位 元照出版公司
DOI 10.3966/172717622015060048007  複製DOI
QRCode
該期刊-上一篇 非保險業經營保險之修法及司法實務走向──聚焦保險要件於互助會案之具體操作
該期刊-下一篇 給付不能與訴訟時效的起算──最高法院100年度台上字第1833號民事判決
 

新書閱讀



最新講座


優惠活動




讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路18 號 5 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄