論法定契約移轉──聚焦於「移轉人保護」與「受讓人保護」的相關規定

Ipso Iure Contract Transfer: Focusing on the Rules Oriented Toward Transferor and Transferee

契約移轉的發生原因，應得大別為「因三方當事人合意而生」以及「因法律規定而生」二者。前者，在私法自治原則之下，應無不許之理。後者，向來以「債權物權化」的事例，廣為周知。
不過，法定契約移轉並不以此為限。綜觀我國法律規定，民法第426條之1、第514條之4，以及保險法第18條等規定，均涉及「物權化以外」的法定契約移轉。此項制度，著眼於「移轉方」或「受讓方」之利益而設，有別於「留任方債權」的債權物權化。在規範意旨不同的前提之下，制度設計與其解釋適用，從而有獨立開展之必要。
本文以此為研究對象，探尋三方當事人間的利益狀態，分析相關制度對於私法自治的可能影響，試圖描繪出法定契約移轉的各種圖像。

A contract transfer may occur either through the consent of all three parties or“ipso iure transfer.”From the perspective of private autonomy, the former is permissible. Conversely, the latter is often associated with the context of“Verdinglichung.”While the“Verdinglichung”seeks to protect the ongoing interests of the“remaining contract party”, ipso iure transfers, such as those under§426-1 and§514-4 of the Taiwanese Civil Code, as well as§18 of the Taiwanese Insurance Law, differ by prioritizing the interests of the“transferor”or“transferee.”Given the distinct legislative policies, this type of transfer warrants closer attention.
This article, therefore, aims to analyze the relevant interests among the three parties, explore the impact of private autonomy, and provide a thorough examination of ipso iure transfers.