論人格權侵權責任認定中的構成要件與利益權衡

Elements of Liability and Balancing of Interests in Determining Personality Rights Infringement

《民法典》通過第998條引入的利益權衡方法並未使人格權侵害民事責任認定規範體系完全擺脫構成要件論的束縛而採動態體系論的立場，該條在區分物質性人格權與非物質性人格權、具體人格權與一般人格權以及非物質性人格權內部的具體人格權是否存在被法律預先概括規定的典型侵害行為類型的基礎上，對人格權侵害民事責任認定中的構成要件與利益權衡二種法律效果評價方法作了區分處理：對於內涵外延清晰確定且享有及行使具有自足性的物質性人格權的侵害責任認定採嚴格的構成要件論，僅在法律有特別規定等例外情形下允許法官在個案中依自由裁量權進行利益權衡以確定相應民事責任；對於享有及行使具有較強社會性而時常處於利益衝突狀態的非物質性人格權的侵害責任認定，則依據是否存在確定的事實構成，尤其是是否存在法律預先概括規定的典型侵害行為而區分為主要通過構成要件評價相應行為之法律效果的領域和主要通過利益權衡方法評價相應行為法律效果的領域。

The introduction of the balancing of interests approach through Article 998 of the Civil Code does not completely free the normative system of determining civil liability for personality rights infringements from the constraints of the elements of liability theory. Based on distinguishing between material personality rights and immaterial personality rights, specific personality rights and general personality rights, and whether there are pre－defined typical types of infringing acts for immaterial personality rights, Article 998 differentiates between the elements of liability and the balancing of interests in determining civil liability for personality rights infringements. For infringements that clearly define the connotation and extension, and that enjoy self－sufficiency in the exercise of material personality rights, a strict elements of liability approach is adopted. Only in exceptional cases where the law provides specific regulations is the judge allowed to exercise discretion in balancing the interests to determine the corresponding civil liability. For non－material personality rights, which possess strong social significance and often face conflicts of interest, the determination of liability is based on the existence of specific factual elements, particularly the presence of pre－defined typical infringing acts. This distinguishes between the domains where the legal effects of corresponding actions are primarily evaluated through the elements of liability and the domains where the legal effects are primarily evaluated through the balancing of interests approach.