涉外生前信託的定性與準據法

Characterization and the Law Applicable to Foreign Living Trusts

外國生前信託的法律適用，在國際私法上是個重要問題。本文以最高法院107年度台再字第23號民事判決為基礎，分別探討其相關問題。本案的系爭生前信託契約係在美國加州就加州的財產訂立，當事人就隱匿該契約是否構成隱匿遺囑，並使繼承人喪失繼承權的問題，發生爭議。各審法院判決均認為生前信託在加州法律上即為遺囑，其成立要件的準據法依涉外民事法律適用法關於遺囑的規定，為臺灣法律，系爭生前信託契約不符合遺囑的法定要件，並非有效的遺囑。本文發現本案的各審法院未說明為何以加州法律為定性的標準，也未調查生前信託契約在加州法律上是否確為遺囑，更因為生前信託其實在加州法律上並非遺囑，其定性結論顯然錯誤。本文認為，系爭生前信託契約在涉外民事法律適用法上，應定性為未經明文規定的信託關係，並就具體爭議的問題，依其所涉及的行為的不同，分別適用債權行為或物權行為的衝突規則；此項涉外信託關係應以美國加州法律為其準據法，而依加州法律，系爭生前信託契約並非遺囑。本案的各審法院判決適用臺灣法律雖獲得相同結論，其理由論述誤謬之處，仍值得重視。作者期望透過本案的反省與研究，呼籲各界重視國際私法的學習與研究，提升臺灣涉外司法實務的裁判品質。

The law applicable to a foreign living trust is significant in private international law. Based on the Supreme Court’s Judgment No. Tai-Zai 23 of 2018, this Article develops its discussion and argument. The living trust at issue was created in California, US and was funded with properties located there. The courts of all instances unanimously ruled against the assertion that hiding a living trust agreement is legally equal to hiding a last will by which an heir’s right to succession is deprived. Their basis is that the living trust in question is a will under California’s law and its governing law shall be ascertained according to the conflicts rule on wills in Taiwan’s Choice-of-law Act. Substantively, they ruled that the living trust at issue is not a valid last will since the formal requirements of Taiwan’s Civil Code were not satisfied. This Article argues that characterization is an important process in applying the conflicts rules of the forum and attention shall be paid to its details. However, the courts of all instances did neither explain why it was characterized under California’s law nor investigate into the evidence to prove that California’s law treats a living trust as a last will. The reasoning is deficient and erroneous because a living trust is not a last will and is not required to be probated under California’s law. This Article further argues that the living trust in question shall be characterized as a trust relationship that is not provided for in Taiwan's Choice-of-law Act. The specific question that is disputed over shall be furtherly characterized as a legal relationship arising from an obligatory act or a proprietary act. The living trust in this case shall be characterized as a trust and governed by California’s law. It is therefore substantively not a last will. The right conclusion was coincidentally reached unanimously by the courts of all instances on this case. Yet, sufficient attention shall be paid to the fallacies and errors in the reasonings of their judgments. It is hoped that the reflections and comments on such judgments call on stressful learning and research in private international law and promote the quality of decisions in Taiwan’s international judicial practice.