物之抽象使用利益的損害賠償──以德國法為中心

Compensation for Damages Caused by Loss of Use–Focused on German Law

物之使用喪失本身並非財產損害，除非被害人另支出費用取得代用物，否則無法做為獨立的賠償對象，此為我國學說與實務長期的固定見解，究其原因，主要係因損害概念差額說使然，蓋被害人既未支出費用，即無財產差額，自亦無損害也。與之相較，德國法早已承認物之使用喪失得為賠償的對象，並透過法院實務建構出一完整的規範系統，雖此問題在學說上仍屬民法學中最具爭議的問題之一。我國最高法院近年出現個別判決承認被害人未支出租金費用卻仍得主張損害賠償者，其見解背後似有德國法的影響，故本文之目的即在說明德國法的發展以及其規範內容，其結論或可提供國內實務與學說參考。

"According to the legal theory and practice the nature of loss of the use has not been considered a property damage. Unless the injured person pays certain expenses to obtain a substitute, it cannot be an independent compensation object. The reason is mainly the doctrine of hypothetic difference. Since the injured person has not paid any expenses, there is no property difference, and no damage either. In contrast, in German law it is a tradition to recognize that loss of use can be the object of compensation, and a complete normative system made by court practice has been constructed. Nevertheless this is still one of the most controversial issues in German law. Recently the Supreme Court of Taiwan affirmed the compensation for damages caused by loss of use without paying any expenses for substitute in one case. The opinion behind this court decision might be influenced by German law. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to study the development of German law and its normative content. The conclusion could be a reference for the legal practice and doctrine in Taiwan."