職業災害勞工保護法第7條請求權2年消滅時效之起算──評最高法院107年度台上字第2066號民事判決

A Study on the Starting Point for the Two-year Prescription of Article 7 of the Act for Protecting Worker of Occupational Accidents: Comments on the (107) Tai-Shang No. 2066 Decision Rendered by the Supreme Court

關於侵權行為損害賠償請求權之2年短期時效起算點之判斷，依我國民法第197條第1項，雖僅以知悉「損害及賠償義務人」為要件，惟通說與實務見解則本於該條的制度目的與權利行使可能性的考量，認為並不以此為限，如違法性等帶有法律評價色彩之要件，亦應為所知悉之內容始得起算時效。此時所須知悉之內容與程度為何，即為短期時效何時起算的核心問題。職業災害勞工保護法第7條作為民法侵權責任的特別規定，關於其短期時效之起算，亦帶有同樣之問題。再者，在我國的職業災害救濟制度下，於同一職業災害中，職災勞工可能同時享有勞保條例上之職災保險給付與民法上損害賠償請求權。此時，作為核付職災保險給付依據而由行政機關所作出的職業災害之認定，是否會影響侵權行為損賠請求權短期時效的起算，即有探究之必要。本文擬藉由評釋最高法院107年度台上字第2066號民事判決，檢討我國實務見解於職業災害民事訴訟中關於民法第197條第1項2年時效起算點之認定，並希冀得以透過日本法之介紹與分析，作為我國解釋論上的參考。

According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Code, if the tort claim for the injury arising from a wrongful act is not exercised within two years from the date when the injury and the person bound to make compensation became known to the injured person, it shall be extinguished by prescription. However, based on the legislative purposes of the article and the possibility of exercising one’s right, the courts’ judgments and the prevailing opinion in Taiwan hold that the two-year prescription shall not begin until not only the injury and the identity of the wrongdoer but also other elements such as the wrongfulness of the tort have been known. Hence, which elements are supposed to be known and to what extent they should be known to trigger the commencement of the prescription becomes a critical topic. As lex specialis of tort in the Civil Code, the same question arises in Article 7 of the Act for Protecting Worker of Occupational Accidents while determining its period of prescription. Furthermore, the legal system of workers’ compensation in Taiwan allows injured workers to claim for compensation even if damages had been covered by benefits under the Labor Insurance Act, and thus it is necessary to explore whether the determination of an occupational disease by the authority, as the foundation of the insurance benefit payments of occupational injuries, shall influence the starting point for the prescription of the tort claim. In order to provide useful references to solve these related problems, this research not merely reviews the judicial opinions on the determination of the starting time of prescription of tort claims regarding occupational accidents by commenting on the (107) Tai-Shang No. 2066 Decision rendered by the Supreme Court, but as well analyses the Japanese comparative law as a reference for interpretation.