民事因果關係概念之再構成

Restructure of Causation Concept in Civil Law

系所名稱：法律研究所 學位別：博士 畢業學年：100年 指導教授：孫森焱 因果關係向來是民事法上重要而極富爭議的議題，鑒於法學概念上的因果關係呈現出百變的面貌，雖有彈性但不易掌握，故以民事法上之損害賠償法與不當得利法為範圍，於現行法架構下，還原因果關係之本質並強化其長久以來被忽視之功能。本文著眼於事實上因果關係之論證、法價值面上評價之結構模型、以及二者間之交互作用，提出一套以事實上因果關係為骨架且具有完整性、預設性、與普遍性之法價值審查原則。就損害賠償法而言，提出「以事實上因果關係為基礎之歸責原則」；而就不當得利法則提出「以損益變動關連性為基礎之審查原則」。 就損害賠償法而言，除必要條件關係之論證外，應就充分性合併作觀察，進而以充分性為基礎進行違法性與有責性之歸責審查。再者，歸責審查僅限於「責任成立」層次為之，其審查之二端則為法益侵害(不論第一次或是後續法益侵害) 與原因事實(行為)，藉此建構出法益侵害→原因事實(事實上因果關係)→責任審查之審查步驟，對於侵害結果之發生具有直接充分性之原因事實行為人應進行違法性與有責性之「直接責任」審查，於此情形，「相當性」之歸責功能將完全被「有責性」之審查吸收；對於僅具備間接充分性之先原因事實行為人則進行以「防免義務之違反」為核心之「間接責任」歸責審查，以間接責任三要件作為審查手段，亦即該先原因事實本身對於後原因事實介入前所造成之侵害或風險必須是可歸責或可非難的(間接責任要件一)，且先原因事實行為人對因後原因事實之介入所造成之法益侵害於法規範評價上須負有防免之作為義務(間接責任要件二)，而又因可歸責事由未善盡該防免義務(間接責任要件三)，此間接責任審查三要件應可作為「相當性」概念實際操作上之補充，革除過去以籠統之「相當性」作論證之弊病。將「以事實上因果關係為基礎之歸責原則」與民法上特殊侵權行為條文相對照，吾人即可觀察到立法政策上如何就不同之特殊侵權行為類型，對於直接責任或防免責任上因果關係、違法性以及有責性等歸責要件進行調整，本文更以此為基礎，進行特殊侵權行為歸責與賠償體系之再造。 就不當得利法言，直接因果關係說於損益關連性之論斷，有其侷限性，非直接因果關係說以社會觀念與公平原則作為損益變動關連性之判斷基準，曖昧而有爭議，又類型說透過類型化之概念操作化約了因果關係論證之功能，欠缺法學方法上之說服力。故本文提出「以損益變動關連性為基礎之審查原則」，強調所謂財產總額之增減不宜只專注於如標的物或價金等「有形」財產之增減，應同時將債權債務之發生或消滅等「無形」財產之增減列入觀察，方可謂符合民事財產法上對財產之一貫理解並貼近民間通念；再者，特定事件中造成當事人財產損益變動之條件事實不只一項時，倘各條件事實間具備充要條件關係者，其所造成之財產損益即可合一觀察而得出淨損益。於認定當事人財產之淨損益後，再藉由充要條件關係之遞移律，由單項條件事實、或彼此間具充要條件關係之二(多)項條件事實等「一定事實」所造成之淨損益變動，即具備關連性(因果關係)。 不論是損害賠償法之「以事實上因果關係為基礎之歸責原則」、或是不當得利法之「以損益變動關連性為基礎之審查原則」，均揭示了植基於精準的事實上因果關係或損益變動關連性上之法價值評價，其內涵將更為清晰且明確，更有助於當事人間之攻防以及法院的理性思辯。文中雖藉由數則案例之實際操作，初步證明了本文觀點之可行性，惟其實用性與可接受性，仍待更多學說與實務之觀察與檢驗。

The nuclear dogma “no causation means not any liability at all” stemmed from the philosophic thought of “Corrective Justice” makes it essential in every liability actions to establish the exact causation connection, nevertheless the always difficult and problematic element, between the alleged wrongdoing and the injury complained of. Meanwhile, among the elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment, the causation inquiry is also the most challenging task, especially in multiple party payment litigations. Legal theorists and learned judges have devoted themselves to “causation” topic in the heavily inked legal literatures, trying to frame practically sound principles in both fields of civil liability and unjust enrichment, only to achieve limited success and trigger more confusion. According, this article was aimed to reconstruct the causation concepts in both civil liability (Chapter 3 to 7) and unjust enrichment (Chapter 8 and 9). In the section of civil liability, this article made a thorough and in-depth review on the distinguished and representative causation theories and important precedents in the Chapter 3, which led to the proposition of a new liability inquiring principle as depicted in Chapter 4. This liability inquiring principle was further elaborated in details in following two chapters. Pointed out in Chapter 5 was the fatal defect in traditional ways of causation reasoning in the cause-in-fact stage of inquiry since they exclusively restricted themselves to the logical “essential condition” by referring to the “but-for” test or “condition sine qua non” dictum, without properly paying due attention to “sufficient condition”,” conjunctive condition” and “disjunctive condition”… etc. This article attempted to elucidate systemically the fundamental logic regulations and illustrated how they were manipulated in causation reasoning, with special emphasis on the missing condition components described above. On the basis of the complete causation reasoning, Chapter 6 proceeded to investigate the substantial function of “adequate causation” mentioned in our Supreme Court Precedents with special reference to the directly or indirectly sufficient causes. In the event which the cause is directly sufficient to bring out the injury, if the cause is responsible to the injury as assessed by illegality and negligence, then the civil liability will be sustained without further applying the “adequate test”, of which the function will be totally absorbed in the inquiry process of negligence and proved to be totally useless. In the event which the cause is indirectly sufficient, the “adequate test” will reveal itself inadequate, since it skips the essence of illegality and negligence concerning the indirectly sufficient cause to the indirectly causing injury. The way how we inquired the illegality and negligence herein was different from that of we did to the directly sufficient cause, and it would rather be the augment whether cause should burden the doer with the “duty to prevent indirect injury” or not. If yes, yet he breaches, then the illegality sustains, and we can proceed to the negligence inquiry. Applying the fundamental regulations of logics and the principle of liability inquiring described in previous two chapters, Chapter 7 illustrated in depth the way they were manipulated systemically in our Civil Code §§185~191-3 to make understood the distinct way the shift from individual to group and special patterns of responsibility. In the section of unjust enrichment, Chapter 8 briefly reviewed the important and representative opinions dealing with the causation. When proceeding to Chapter 9, this article firstly held that the concept of “logic connection” should be substituted for the “causation” element herein, since what actually bridging in-between the benefit and loss was not the matter of “cause-and-consequence”, but rather the “connection in fact” in nature. Secondly advocated was the concept of the “net” benefit and loss, which indicated the overall assessment of property difference as a consequence of a certain intervening event, tangible or intangible assets all included. Especially highlighted was the importance that the emergence and elimination of creditor’s right and debt should not be ignored. When multiple events intervene, the individual benefit and loss can be integrated into a comprehensive one, only if these events exhibit causation in-between. This article thereafter attempted to illustrate the way how the crucial application of “transitive rule” is manipulated in establishing the “connection in fact” between benefit and loss, which will definitely help to identify the party who really is enriched at the expense of another who’s loss and thus grasp the unabridged integrated “causation” element in proving unjust enrichment. In conclusion, with cunning and appropriate application of logic regulations in the inquiry into the connection between the alleged wrongdoing and the injury complained of, and between benefit and loss, the actual situation can be easily and consistently clarified, and the liability inquiring or restitution can properly be made. Only then can the fairness, equity and justice of jurisdiction finally be realized in civil liability and unjust enrichment litigations.