論繼承人之債權人撤銷拋棄繼承及撤銷遺產分割協議

Regarding Heir's Creditor's Revocation of Waiver of Inheritance and Partition Agreement of Inheritance

繼承人之債權人（以下簡稱債權人）得否以繼承人之拋棄繼承屬詐害債權行為，而以民法（以下同）第244條撤銷之，學界存有正反兩說之見解；於實務界否定說已成為穩定立場，惟事實上，仍不斷可見債權人嘗試以第244條規定主張撤銷拋棄繼承。另外，債權人可否依第244條之規定撤銷繼承人間之遺產分割協議，亦可見爭議，即便有最高法院判決採取肯定說之見解，地方法院判決中仍可見堅持不得撤銷之見解，高等法院也未完全跟隨最高法院判決之意見，至於學界，則幾乎未見相關之討論。本文針對此問題，參考法國法之見解，提出不以「是否係身分行為」之二分法抽象判斷撤銷之可否，而是就兩者皆以「是否構成詐害」於個案中判斷應否撤銷之想法，並認為就客觀要件應要求「債務人之無資力」，就主觀要件則應依當事人之性質詳細區分其內涵、分配證明責任及證明程度；另外，本文亦提出未來我國法可增設「債權人參與分割制度」之建議，以事前程序保障，減少事後爭訟之必要性。以上之解釋論及立法論，似較有助於達成個案中實質之公平，並降低當事人為投機行為之風險。

Could an heir's creditor claim that a waiver of inheritance is an act of fraud and refer to Article 244 of the Civil Code to revoke it? There are pros and cons in legal studies, though the courts stably oppose this claim. However, cases in which heirs'creditors bring this kind of claim to the courts appear continuously. On the other hand, could an heir's creditor claim that a partition agreement of inheritance is an act of fraud and refer to Article 244 to revoke it? This is also a huge dispute. Even though the Supreme Court affirms the possibility, some district courts still insist on the irrevocability. The high courts do not fully agree with the reasonings of the Supreme Court, either. As for the academia, there has been almost no relevant discussion. In response to this issue, this article refers to the insights of French law and proposes not to use the dichotomy of“whether it is an act of identity”to decide whether an act can be revoked. Instead, revocability should be decided case by case through the examination of the existence of fraudulence. This article also indicates that the objective requirement should be“the debtor's insolvency”, and that the subjective requirements, the allocation of burden of proof, and the degree of proof should be decided based on the nature of the parties. In addition, this article also proposes that Taiwanese civil code may in the future introduce an institution which allows creditors to participate in the division procedure. This is to enhance the pre-procedure protection of the creditor and to reduce the need of litigation.The above theories and legislative suggestion seem to be more helpful in achieving concrete fairness and reducing the risk of opportunism taken by the parties.