智慧財產法院一○一年度民專上更（二）字第三號民事判決評釋

Comments on Taiwanese Intellectual Property Court Case No. 101 Min Zhuan Shang Geng Er Zi No.3

民法第七一條規定，法律行為違反強制或禁止之規定者，無效。但其規定並不以之為無效者，不在此限。係在劃定契約自由的外在界線，然如何詮釋上開規定，學說與實務，見解不一。本文以CD-R授權金一案為例，認為智慧財產法院以公平交易法對於獨占事業不當維持價格之規定，係一取締規定，違反上開規定的約款仍屬有效之見解，過於僵化。本文認為違反公平交易法之法律效果，是可差異化處理的，以本案為例，採取契約調整方式，較能保護交易相對人。

According to the Article 71 of Civil Code, “A juridical act which violates an imperative or prohibitive provision of the act is void except voidance is not implied in the provision.” This prohibition draws the boundary of freedom of contract. It is controversy between theories and practices over how to explain this article. The opinion of Taiwanese Intellectual Property Court says that the prohibition of improperly maintaining the price for goods of the monopoly undertaking is a ban provision and does not result in the voidance of agreement. This text suggests the different effects of violating Fair Trade Law. And model of adjusting contract can protect the trading counterpart better.