契約解釋之比較研究－－以臺灣與越南為例

本文首先分析臺灣與越南關於契約解釋之理論及實務，發現臺越雙方就解釋方法而言，可謂大同小異、無甚差別，雙方均以文義解釋、體系解釋、歷史解釋、目的解釋以及交易習慣作為基本方法。但相較於臺灣法，越南民法第404條明定契約解釋之方法具有比較法上的特色，足供參考。值得注意的是，就契約解釋的優先順序而言，臺灣實務判決與越南民法第404條之規定似無顯著之差別，其均將當事人真意與契約目的放在首位，其次斟酌習慣，最後再進行體系解釋。此外，雙方均提及契約解釋不應拘泥於所用之辭句、以及如預先擬定契約的一方提出不利於他方之條款者，應為有利於他方之解釋。再者，關於契約解釋之樣態，臺灣實務判決開宗明義承認兩種契約解釋類型，即所謂闡明性解釋（單純性解釋）、以及旨在填補契約漏洞之補充性解釋。與此相對地，從越南民法第404條之規定觀察可知，越南法以闡明性解釋為原則，對於補充性解釋仍多謹慎，尚待觀察。至於誠信原則所扮演之之功能，從臺越比較可以發現：一來臺灣實務判決常將經濟效益列入解釋適用誠信原則的考量因素，而越南法上尚無此項斟酌要素。二來相較於越南民法讓誠信原則扮演著通案性之審酌功能，臺灣實務則明顯頻繁運用誠信原則作為調節個案利益狀態之法律工具。

This article preliminarily makes a comparative study on contractual interpretation between practical judgment of Taiwan and Article 404 of the Vietnam Civil Code, and explores that both have not much difference in their method and priority order, with respectively interpreting the real intention of parties, systematic interpretation, historical interpretation, purposive interpretation and customary interpretation. Regarding the types of contract interpretations, Taiwan's practice judgment has recognized two types of contract interpretations, namely clarifying interpretation and supplementary interpretation. While the Vietnam law is only based on the principle of clarifying interpretation, but supplementary interpretation is still acted with caution in practice. However, in practice Taiwan's court often take the principle of good faith as an interest balance standard for the adjustment and supplement of the judging reason in each case, while in Vietnam it prefers general approach to the principle and if the party who drafts the contract in advance proposes a clause against the other party, it shall be an interpretation in favor of the other party.