契約解除原物返還嗣後不能

The Impossibility of Restitution in Kind in Cases of Termination of Contracts

標的物受領後原物返還嗣後不能，我國現行法下，受領人欲解除契約請求返還其所為之對待給付，層層關卡，困難重重。解除法律效果之規定是否排除給付不能一般規定之適用，又相關規定所謂「可歸責」應如何理解，不無疑義。最高法院認為契約解除後返還不能，適用給付不能及危險負擔一般規定，使返還不能之責任因返還不能發生在解除前或後而有不同。本文認為標的物毀損滅失之危險，原則上應由受領人負擔，契約解除前，表現在解除權喪失上，契約解除後，則體現在損害賠償責任上。返還不能，除非可歸責於他方當事人，否則，均屬於第261條及第226條所謂可歸責之情形，解除前有解除權受領人返還不能，解除權消滅；解除後返還不能，受領人負賠償責任。

The restitution of performance after a contract has been terminated is governed by specific contract law rules which define the mutual restitutionary claims which may arise after termination (§259 Taiwan Civil Code). Among the issues arising out of the termination of contract, the destruction of subject matter is recognized as the most complicated one. This research aims at finding out if there is a possibility to rebuild or reconstruct the law of recovery of performance de lege lata and de lege ferenda.