票據代理與金額變動之定性與效力──評最高法院109 年度台簡上字第61 號民事判決

The Qualification and Effectiveness of Bill Agency and Amount Changes: A Review of 109th year Tai-Jian-Shang-Zi Civil Judgment No. 61 of the Supreme Court

最高法院109年度台簡上字第61號民事判決的案例事實涉及空白授權票據與票據代理之認定、票據金額變動之定性與效力、票據法上越權代理之適用要件以及其與民法表見代理之適用問題。本案事實因發票人授予補充記載票據金額及發票日之對象非票據行為之相對人，應係票據代理而非空白授權票據。代理人於票據交付背書人前變動票據金額，屬票據金額改寫非票據變造。至於票據金額改寫之效力，涉及票據法第11條第3項之解釋。從立法目的、票據交易安全、規範實效性、規範性質之強弱等面向分析，票據法第11條第3項乃取締規定，違反時不應影響票據行為之效力。其次，最高法院判決認為票據法第10條第2項僅適用於代理人逾越權限以代理人名義簽名於票據之情形。惟票據法第10條第2項乃規定越權代理人之法定擔保責任，與是否以代理人名義簽名於票據無關，故縱使越權代理人以簽名代行方式代理本人為票據行為，仍應就權限外之部分自負票據責任。最後，因民法第169條與票據法第10條第2項不具普通特別關係，就權限外之部分，於本人有授權外觀下，善意無過失之執票人除請求越權代理人自負票據責任外，亦得選擇請求本人依民法第169條規定，負授權人責任。本文對最高法院判決之結論雖可認同，但其就相關爭議問題之推論與分析，則有待商榷。

The 109th year Tai-Jian-Shang-Zi Civil Judgment No. 61 of the Supreme Court involves the identification of blank authorization bills and bill agent, the qualification and effect of bill amount changes, the applicable requirements of unauthorized agent in bill law, and issues concerning apparent agency in civil law. In that case, the drawer authorized the object of supplementing the record of bill amount and issuing date to a person other than the counterparty of the bill act, which should be a bill agent rather than a blank authorization bill. The agent changed the bill amount before delivering to the endorser, which was a rewriting of the bill amount rather than a alteration of the bill. The effect of the bill amount rewriting involves the interpretation of Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Bill Law. From the perspective of legislative purpose, bill transaction security, the nature and effectiveness of regulation, Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Bill Law is a prohibitive provision, the violation of which should not affect the effectiveness of bill act. The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bill Law applies only when the agent signs the bill in the name of an agent beyond his authority. However, Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bill Law stipulates the legal assured’s responsibility for the ultra vires agent, which is irrelevant to whether the agent signs the bill. Therefore, even if the ultra vires agent acts on behalf of the himself by signing, he should still bear the bill responsibility for the part beyond his authority. Finally, as there is no ordinary-special relationship between Article 169 of the Civil Code and Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bill Law, for the part beyond the authority, under the apparent authorization by himself, the faultless holder with good faith can not only claim the ultra vires agent to bear the bill responsibility, but also choose to claim himself to bear the authorizer's responsibility according to Article 169 of the Civil Code. While this paper may agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court judgment, its reasoning and analysis of the related controversial issues are still open for discussion.